Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Climate Change

Graham Allen: If she will make a statement on progress in arresting climate change.

Margaret Beckett: Deep cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Our energy White Paper shows the way and the degree of ambition that industrialised countries need to show. The Kyoto protocol will provide the incentive for others to start down the same path.

Graham Allen: I know that my right hon. Friend is far too busy to watch much television, but the other evening she might have caught Jeremy Clarkson's programme about air travel in which he mentioned that when air traffic movements were suspended for three days following the 9/11 disaster, the temperature in the atmosphere fell by 1°, and it went back up by 1° when air traffic resumed. Will she do everything she can to ensure that aircraft emissions become part of the trading arrangements that are being negotiated at European level, and thus tackle a difficult and long-term problem?

Margaret Beckett: I sometimes watch Jeremy Clarkson's programmes, but I missed that one, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information. I assure him that although aviation emissions are not currently included in any of the responsibilities that countries undertake, because there has been no opportunity to discuss how they could be allocated fairly, there is considerable discussion about how we in Europe might put aviation emissions into the emissions trading scheme, say, from 2008. Not only the UK but many European Union member states take a keen interest in such a proposal.

Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues in the United States, India and China what they are doing to cut emissions that are greatly polluting the atmosphere?

Margaret Beckett: I have had discussions with people in all those countries. The hon. Gentleman might know that a great many interesting proposals have been made by some of the states of the United States that are major emitters. Several of America's states are among the world's top 10 emitters as individual states and they are considering trading schemes, which they wish to make compatible with the EU's. Like many people in other parts of the world, they are also looking at standards for vehicle emissions and so on.
	Similar discussions are taking place in India and China. The hon. Gentleman might know that China has been quite successful in ensuring that its emissions increase at a much slower rate than its economy grows. Although in the long term China wants its economic capacity to quadruple, its goal is to ensure that its emissions only double during the same period. Of course emissions growth remains a concern, but that is an indication of the extent to which China understands the issues and is beginning to take responsibility for what happens in its own country.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how to realise the huge potential of tidal power in an island nation such as ours? Especially, will they discuss the DTI providing some funding for an exciting pilot scheme that could take place in Swansea bay in the very near future?

Margaret Beckett: Given the years of experience that we in this House share of proposals for Cardiff bay, I am a little nervous about suggestions for Swansea bay. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I often discuss such issues. She shares my regret that the UK has not invested more in research into and exploitation of the potential of tidal power. The Government are looking closely at the matter.

Michael Jack: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has shown enthusiasm and commitment to a UK biofuels industry; sadly, however, the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the Department for Trade and Industry do not seem to share that enthusiasm and commitment. When will the Government get their act together, and when will we see the beginnings of a proper bioethanol and biodiesel industry in this country based on UK-produced crops?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my Treasury and DTI colleagues: they take precisely the interest in biofuels and their potential that he wants them to. There has been a certain amount of dispute between the Treasury and the industry over how great an incentive is needed to stimulate UK production but not suck in imports. However, there is no dispute about the fact that the industry and the Treasury both want a domestic industry to be stimulated and to flourish and neither wants to suck in imports. The only dispute is about how, technically, to achieve that.
	I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, not so long ago, the Chancellor announced capital allocation programmes. Through fiscal and economic incentives my right hon. Friend has done quite a lot to stimulate the right behaviour in respect of fuels generally, and he takes the issues seriously.

Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that she is to approach the European Commission for a hybrid solution to the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. On the question of carbon dioxide, will she say what she is doing, with the DTI, to press for more investment in clean coal technology? If we are to tackle CO 2 emissions, especially in China and India, we need to be able to transfer new clean coal technology to those countries so that we can effect a reduction in CO 2 emissions.

Margaret Beckett: The Government's approach to the Commission about the potential for a hybrid approach to the large combustion plants directive has been a joint one. There have been joint discussions and joint decisions by the DTI and ourselves because we both share the view that there should be a degree of beneficial flexibility. Although I entirely understand and take the point that my hon. Friend makes about clean coal technology, and not least the potential for that technology in China and India, where there are large resources of coal and a considerable need for energy supply, that is more specifically a matter for the DTI. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services share my hon. Friend's interest and concern in and for this subject.

Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the last Conservative Government left office in 1997, carbon dioxide emissions in Britain were falling, and that after seven years of a Labour Government these emissions are rising? Against that background, how long will it be before the Government have to abandon their target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010?

Margaret Beckett: First, there is no question of the Government abandoning our domestic target. Secondly, we have already not just met but exceeded our Kyoto target. Unfortunately, we have seen some fluctuations in CO 2 emissions, specifically over the past couple of years, as a result of continued economic growth as well as the implications of fluctuations in fuel prices. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is right that there were some successes under the Conservative Government. Those successes resulted in their flattening the economy.

Peter Pike: I want to press my right hon. Friend, who has obviously been committed 100 per cent. to these issues for many years, on the issues facing countries such as India, Pakistan and China, to which she referred. Obviously, we want to see their economies grow, but it is essential that they do so in a way that is environmentally friendly and does not cancel out what we and other developed countries are doing. Will my right hon. Friend say more about how she sees progress in that direction?

Margaret Beckett: Anyone who studies this subject is extremely conscious of how much needs to be done at a global level to reduce emissions to mitigate the most potentially damaging effects of climate change. Equally, however, I think that everyone who is close to the subject is conscious that, quite rightly, the approach that the international community has adopted is, to use the jargon phrase, one of common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, the developed countries that are most responsible at present for increased emissions have the greatest capacity to tackle the increase in emissions and should be the first to demonstrate that emissions can be reduced. One of the things that we are engaged in with our European colleagues is a determination to ensure that developed countries show the way forward. For example, our economy has grown by about 36 or 37 per cent. while our emissions have fallen by about 15 per cent. We have shown that emissions can be cut without sacrificing growth in the economy. We and others need to demonstrate that so that we can show to some of the poorest countries in the world that they can have increased prosperity for their peoples without ruining the planet.

Norman Baker: Has the Secretary of State seen the official statistics that were released today after being suppressed in May showing that there has been a 47 per cent. increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector since 1990, although there has been a 10 per cent. decrease overall? This week, her colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, projected a further 10 per cent. increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector by 2010. Is she content with that record, and is it not pointless her Department saying the right things and making the odd cut here and there if the Department for Transport is out of control? When will she put the brakes on that Department?

Margaret Beckett: I have not seen that report nor, indeed, am I aware of any report being suppressed.

Elliot Morley: It is on the website.

Margaret Beckett: If that is the case, it is not a very good way to suppress something.
	On the general point about the Department for Transport, the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that it is now associated with the public spending targets that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry share for the reduction in emissions.

Dennis Skinner: To get the historical facts right, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the late 1980s and '90s the all-party group on coalfield communities considered the question of emissions and called for clean fuel technology. A pilot project was set up at Grimethorpe, and not only did the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) fail to tell the House that the Tories closed the pits but he did not reveal that they closed that clean fuel technology plant. No wonder the miners were brassed off.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I well recall that at the time many people were concerned that the then Government were prepared to abandon a technology that clearly had considerable potential for the future.

Badgers

Anthony Steen: If she will propose legislation to remove badgers' protected status.

Ben Bradshaw: No.

Anthony Steen: Does the Minister not accept that badgers are vermin and have no known predators? Disease is thus rampant and spreading throughout the south-west, inflicting enormous damage and losses on herds. Does he not agree that farmers are now less protected than badgers, and that the Government appear not to care less?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that. The latest figures for Devon, the south-west and the country as a whole are slightly down on last year. The difficulty that the Government face—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands, as he is a reasonable man—is that there is an absence of scientific evidence that a particular badger culling policy would help to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. No Government would make a decision to go ahead on that basis, as was recently stated in a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

Brian Jenkins: As my hon. Friend will know, all badger carcases on British roads are removed as soon as possible and taken away for analysis. Does he have figures showing what percentage of those carcases in fact have TB? Is the incidence of the disease higher in certain areas of the country, and has progress been made on a vaccine so that we can at least vaccinate the animals rather than eradicate them?

Ben Bradshaw: We very much want to make progress on vaccination for badgers and, indeed, cattle. I have recently expressed a wish to progress scoping studies on both areas as quickly as possible, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that successful vaccination for both animals is probably some time away. We hope soon to have a more reliable live test for badgers, which might help if a badger culling policy were adopted at some stage. As for the road traffic accident survey, yes, there are variations across the country, as one would expect, with a higher level of TB in badgers in areas where there is also a greater prevalence of TB in cattle. I do not have the latest figures to hand, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can see them.

Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that Castle Point has one of the largest urban badger populations in the country? Of course, they can cause havoc, especially to domestic property, but nevertheless the current systems for managing badgers work well. The badger is one of the most wonderful British wild animals, and we must continue to protect it.

Ben Bradshaw: That was a statement, rather than a question, but I note the position taken by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has had some interesting badger issues as a local constituency MP, which I think he will acknowledge have divided his constituents and divided residents of the streets where the badgers have been causing problems. There is no simple answer to the question.

David Drew: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the only answer is to go back to the science. The recent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made some recommendations, which we hope the Government can respond to. We cannot ignore the fact that bovine TB is present not only in cattle and badgers, but in a number of other species, particularly the deer population, so we must take the right action, rather than precipitate action. Will my hon. Friend comment on the measures that the Government propose with regard to the problem with the deer population?

Ben Bradshaw: We have already undertaken some research into the deer population. The interaction between deer and cattle and between badgers and cattle is rather different and of a different degree. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fylde for their excellent and balanced report, most—if not all—of whose recommendations the Government accept and intend to progress as rapidly as we can.

Patrick Cormack: While anyone brought up on "Wind in the Willows" or who has watched badgers at play knows that they are delightful animals, there is a pretty clear case that they are causing a great deal of trouble to our farmers. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about putting them on the pill?

Ben Bradshaw: Well, there is a certain amount of research from this country, and from other countries such as New Zealand that have had problems with possums, on the potential for oral contraception or sterilisation. I am afraid we have not yet reached the stage where a reliable or effective method has been found, but I am sure that many people, not least those who would like to get rid of grey squirrels, await such a contraceptive or sterilisation pill with great expectation.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of progress towards carbon dioxide emission reduction targets.

David Amess: What progress has been made towards meeting the Kyoto carbon dioxide target.

Margaret Beckett: The UK remains on course to achieve its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Provisional estimates suggest that greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were about 14 per cent. below the baseline. The Government have a separate goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide for 2003 are provisionally estimated to be about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990.

Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case, though, that based on the Government's own recently published energy and emissions projections, even if we meet the difficult 20 per cent. renewables target and implement all our energy efficiency policies, the 60 per cent. CO 2 reduction target for 2050 will go off course in 2010 and will not be achieved? Should we not be looking at carbon capture and storage technology now, so that we can bridge that emissions gap and maintain security of supply? The only other option would be the nuclear option.

Margaret Beckett: I do not entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis because, although I take his point that the 60 per cent. target is a challenging one, there are a number of trajectories that one could follow to reach it. There has always been a discussion about whether we ought to try to pursue a straight line path, or whether there is merit in back-end loading as, for example, the newer technologies become available, recognising that we may be able to make greater moves at a later date than we can at present. However, my hon. Friend is right that there is considerable interest in carbon abatement technology. A great deal of thought and study is going into it and I anticipate that we shall hear more of it in the not too distant future.

David Amess: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, apart from helping to eliminate fuel poverty, has made a considerable contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Given the fact that, according to DEFRA's figures, those emissions have been going up since 1997, does she believe that the targets will be reached by 2010?

Margaret Beckett: In fact, the trend since 1997 has been downwards, although in the past couple of years there has been the fluctuation that I mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that attacking fuel poverty is the right course in itself. It also makes a considerable contribution to reducing emissions. I am sure that he knows, because he takes a great interest in such issues, that we are reviewing the effectiveness of the previous fuel poverty, or warm front, programmes and intend to produce proposals in a few months' time. I expect that he has also noticed that, thanks to the Chancellor's spending review, substantial extra resources have been allocated to tackling fuel poverty. We are hoping to publish an implementation plan for the new funding and the new proposals later in the year.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Conservative Members were encouraged when, 18 months ago, her ministerial colleague announced the energy efficiency target of a 5 million tonne reduction in carbon emissions? That figure was confirmed by the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, Lord Whitty. Industry was more than satisfied when the Chancellor, no less, endorsed the 5 million tonne target. The final seal of approval was put on it by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only three months ago. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why, after all this spin and hype, she has announced a target that is significantly lower? Does not that send completely the wrong signals to industry and to everyone who is trying to cope with the situation?

Margaret Beckett: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman reaches that view, but I assure him that he is mistaken. The figure of 5 million tonnes was very much an illustrative figure in the energy White Paper. It was never intended to be a goal or a target, but an initial indication of what was then thought might be possible—[Interruption.] Yes, I am conscious of the document that the hon. Gentleman indicates. Since the energy White Paper was produced, a great deal more detailed analysis has been carried out. That led us to conclude that 5 million is not a realistic figure, but 4.2 million would be. However, that is certainly not the wrong signal to be sending to business. The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that through the energy efficiency plan, we plan to make more savings as a result of energy efficiency than under the previous proposals. On the basis of that further, more detailed analysis, we think that although we may not be able to make quite as much of a saving from the domestic sector, we can make more of a saving from the business sector.

Illegal Dumping (Dee Estuary)

Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on illegal dumping in the Dee estuary.

Elliot Morley: Responsibility for controlling the deposit of materials within the Dee estuary is split between the Department in English territorial waters and the National Assembly in the waters adjacent to Wales.
	I am not aware of any illegal disposal of materials anywhere within the Dee estuary prior to devolution, nor of any subsequently within the English sector of the estuary. In 2001, there was a prosecution for the illegal dumping of dredgings in the Welsh sector.

Ben Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to the best of my knowledge, two companies were fined for illegally dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of sand in Mostyn deep? Is he equally aware that the effects on that vastly important and ecologically fragile site are incalculable? Does he make any connection between that and the current application to dredge, and what proposals does he have for preventing its happening in future?

Elliot Morley: I assure my hon. Friend that we in this Department take our environmental duties very seriously and that we work in close conjunction with the Welsh Assembly. The prosecutions were brought by DEFRA lawyers, and DEFRA technical staff have been giving advice on dredging in the Mostyn area and on the disposal of dredgings. As my hon. Friend says, it is a very sensitive environmental site, and it has to be protected with proper regulation. Of course, we will have no hesitation in taking appropriate action if people break the rules.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister agree that illegal dumping in the Dee estuary would be reduced if the legal disposal of waste was encouraged and made easier for the public? That means more resources. Under the circumstances, is he aware that the Gershon review, which was adopted by the Treasury only last week, announced a £300 million cut in waste services. What impact will that have on dumping on the Dee estuary? Is not that simply code for sacking dustmen and closing tips? Where will a third of a billion pounds of cuts in waste services fall?

Elliot Morley: That appears a bit bizarre given that the Conservative party made a big thing about rooting out waste and becoming more efficient in spending money. The Gershon inquiry is examining ways in which to achieve the same and even better service delivery by reducing cost. Gershon pointed out that there are considerable potential savings, for example, in procurement, in the regional approach to waste management. The Conservative party appears to want to waste money rather than use it efficiently to improve service delivery, which is our commitment.

Fisheries

Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with the Fisheries Ministers of (a) Norway, (b) Iceland and (c) the Faroes.

Ben Bradshaw: I discussed fisheries issues with Nordic ambassadors last month and I hope to visit Norway, Iceland and the Faroes soon. All three were represented at this week's annual conference of the International Whaling Commission at which, on behalf of the United Kingdom, I strongly criticised their support for the resumption of commercial whaling.

Michael Weir: Has the Under-Secretary discussed fishing issues in his meetings with those Ministers? The common fisheries policy meant a management regime that is unacceptable to most fishing communities, yet the Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese have all created more environmentally friendly and sustainable fishery management regimes, especially through the inclusion of fishermen, community leaders and other stakeholders. Does he believe that the European constitution's inclusion of article 12, which establishes exclusive EU competence, gives any scope for the development of such a scheme in Scotland, or is there to be even more centralisation and destruction of our industry?

Ben Bradshaw: It is wrong to suggest that the proposed constitution changes the competence on fisheries in the European Union. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's support for withdrawal from the EU. It did not do his party much good in the recent European elections in Scotland, where its vote dropped substantially. However, we are keen to learn from best practice in other countries, as the Prime Minister's strategy unit makes clear.
	I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine exactly what has happened in the Faroes and Iceland. The capacity of their fleets has reduced massively. If we adopted the same effort control as the Faroes, we would have to cut the amount of fish that we catch in the North sea by almost half. I do not believe that he would like that.

Kali Mountford: When considering the preservation of fish stocks, will my hon. Friend take into account the effect on marine mammals? He has already mentioned whaling, and my constituents will be grateful for his comments. Is he also concerned about the welfare of dolphins? If we are not careful about our fishing methods, are not the lives of those lovely marine mammals at risk?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. She may have noticed that, this morning, we announced that we would seek the closure of the Bass pair trawl fishery off the south-west of England because of concerns about the stranding of dolphins and porpoises. We are asking for emergency action by the Commission under article 7. We have also made it clear that, if the action is unsuccessful, we are prepared to consider unilateral measures, which will help to prevent such carnage.

Robert Key: Has the Minister discussed with the Ministers of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes their important freshwater fisheries and the shared problem of pollution of our rivers, especially through sewage overflow, endocrine disruptors and phosphorous?

Ben Bradshaw: I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss those matters, but I hope that I shall shortly. I am aware of the problem. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent Environment Agency report, which showed that the state of the rivers and most of the stocks in them in this country were better than they have ever been. However, we can always improve and we are especially worried about, for example, the amount of salmon in many rivers in my part of the world, where they were previously abundant.

Andrew George: I welcome today's announcement of the Government's request for emergency measures to close the Bass pair trawl fishery, which, as the Under-Secretary said, is known to result in the deaths of many thousands of dolphins and porpoises. Will the Government make similarly robust and determined efforts, through Europe and with the co-operation of Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, on industrial fisheries and the introduction of a meaningful regional dimension to fisheries management?

Ben Bradshaw: We made some progress on industrial fisheries at the last December Council, in that we introduced a reduction in the total allowable catch and, for the first time, an effort control regime in those fisheries. On regional management, we are making good progress on establishing the regional advisory councils. The United Kingdom will always look for ways in which we can make improvements to the common fisheries policy to set it on course for a profitable and sustainable future, in contrast to the cruel deception perpetrated by some parties who suggest that we could solve all our fisheries problems if we simply withdrew from the CFP, which would also mean withdrawing from the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins: I had hoped to get in on question 1 and ask my hon. Friend whether he had any information on the stocks of grayling. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so. [Hon. Members: Grayling's off!"] We are obviously one short here today.
	More seriously, does my hon. Friend have precise figures for the fish stocks in Norwegian and British national waters before the introduction of the common fisheries policy that could be compared with the level of stocks today?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ask my officials to dig them out and to write to my hon. Friend. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir): Iceland, Norway and the Faroes have undergone substantial reductions in the capacity of their fleets. They use different means of managing their fish stocks—indeed, the methods used by Iceland and the Faroes are quite different from each other—and those methods are not problem-free. We have a more complicated mixed fishery. We are much closer to the European mainland, and we have scores of different stocks that we have traditionally shared with other countries. So we face a more complex set of challenges.
	In response to the question on grayling that you very generously allowed, Mr. Speaker, I can report that the stocks of grayling in our rivers and streams are extremely healthy. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) read the recent Environment Agency report on this subject, which shows that that is largely a result of measures that the Government have taken to clean up our rivers.

Alistair Carmichael: I accept what the Minister says about the welcome reduction in the total allowable catch for industrial fishing that was achieved last year. He will be aware, however, that fishermen, fishery scientists and fisheries managers in the Nordic Council countries are still scathing about the unsustainable level of industrial fishing that we maintain. When are the Government going to get real about the need to tackle the level of permitted industrial fishing under the common fisheries policy? Does the Minister share my disappointment that the Prime Minister's strategy unit report was absolutely silent on that issue?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that at all. The Prime Minister's strategy unit report was the first comprehensive, strategic look at the future of our fishing industry in living memory. It pointed out that, if we get our capacity right, our fishermen and their communities can have a profitable and sustainable future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with the Government and the fishing industry to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. I agree with him on industrial fishing; that is a case that United Kingdom Governments of both political colours have been making for some time, and we are making those arguments more and more successfully. We must, however, have the science to back those arguments up and, this year, we are again investing more than £1 million in scientific collaboration with fishermen to get the evidence that we need to make the case that the hon. Gentleman advanced. I repeat that it is simplistic to think that we can adopt the systems that are used in countries such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, which have very different fisheries from ours.

Paddy Tipping: What progress did my hon. Friend make at the International Whaling Commission on the demise of so-called scientific whaling and, more importantly, on developing a conservation agenda?

Ben Bradshaw: I am pleased to report that the countries led by Britain, the so-called like-minded countries, were successful in regard to the main issues of concern, namely Japanese attempts to introduce secret voting in the IWC, to close one of the biggest whale sanctuaries in the southern oceans and to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. However, the majority that we have had in the IWC over the years is slowly being eroded by an aggressive recruitment campaign by the Japanese of small, mainly poor and developing countries that appear to have no obvious interest in hunting whales, whose representatives suddenly turn up and read out speeches supporting the Japanese position and vote with the Japanese. This is a serious issue, and we and the countries that agree with us on whaling really have to get our act together if we are to prevent a reverse of the advances that have been made in conserving the whale in the past 20 years.

John Whittingdale: Is it not the case that one advantage enjoyed by fishermen in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes is that they are not covered by the working time directive? Does he accept that the nature of fishing makes it wholly inappropriate to impose limits on working times, and will he say whether the Government intend to make exceptions for fishing based on the compensatory rest proposals that have been submitted by the industry? If so, on what basis will those exceptions operate?

Ben Bradshaw: Discussions on the working time directive are going on at the moment. I will examine the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and write to him.

Orchards

David Heath: What assessment she has made of the value of orchards in terms of (a) the environment and (b) biodiversity.

Elliot Morley: Traditional orchards form an attractive and important habitat for a wide range of species including wild flowers, lichens, insects and birds, and the Government fund their conservation through the countryside stewardship scheme.

David Heath: It is hard to imagine a more benign agricultural practice than orchards, particularly the cider orchards in my county. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of many fruit growers at the implications of the single farm payment scheme and the intention of many of them to grub up old and unproductive orchards before the end of the year. I know that the Department is working on that and that it is making progress. He could make a big difference to the future of traditional cider orchards, in particular, if he could clarify the position for dual-use orchards that are grazed by livestock. Is any thought being given to a density limit for application of the single farm payment scheme for traditional orchards?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that we are discussing with the European Commission the definition of grazed or grazeable land in relation to orchards, which may have an implication. It is worth bearing it in mind that orchards were not included in the previous subsidy regime and the regime that has been proposed is the same for the whole of Europe. There is not an incentive to grub up orchards because, in the initial stages of the new payment, those who did so would be eligible for only £20 per hectare. In contrast, older orchards, which are important for biodiversity, can go into stewardship schemes, which involve payment of hundreds of pounds per hectare. On top of that, in the hon. Gentleman's area, some orchards have gone into the organic scheme. Bulmers has been active in promoting that and I saw some of the work that it was doing, for which it deserves great credit. He will also be aware of measures to support that side of industry, which have been welcomed in his part of the world.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend realise that not only has there been great discontent, even in Yorkshire, about the threat to orchards, the grubbing up of orchards and the impact on biodiversity, but that, if it has been covered extensively on "You and Yours", perhaps it must be true? Will he now scotch the rumours that have been going round and which have been carried on the BBC? Are orchards in this country under threat or not?

Elliot Morley: This is a hypothetical threat, because it assumes that there are people in this country who would bulldoze ancient orchards simply to get access to funds under the revised common agricultural policy. I do not believe that many people will fall into that category. Some of the allegations have been exaggerated. At this moment, we do not have much evidence that that is happening. I repeat that a range of other support mechanisms are available, not least stewardship, under which considerable financial support can be provided in recognition of the range of environmental benefits that older orchards provide.

Bill Wiggin: What the Minister has not mentioned is that the stewardship scheme is closed for this year. Will he confirm that all traditional orchards will be eligible to join whatever the new scheme is when it reopens next year?

Elliot Morley: The rules will be more or less the same as those that apply now, in the sense that applications were made in relation to the old stewardship scheme, and we are now moving into the entry-level scheme. That scheme will have a higher tier, which depends on point-scoring, the range of options, eligibility criteria and what people can offer in terms of meeting the demands of the scheme. Many orchards will fall within that scheme and, when it opens, people will have that option. In addition, with the changes in the mid-term review—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a considerable success in getting that agreement—increased resources will go into our agri-environment programmes, which will mean a wider range of options and more flexibility.

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

Jim Cunningham: How many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants announced in the spending review will take place in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and if she will make a statement.

Alun Michael: Work is in progress to identify the scale of reduction in staff numbers at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. It is too early to give specific figures.

Jim Cunningham: Which other parts of his Department is my right hon. Friend looking at to reduce the numbers of staff?

Alun Michael: The efficiencies coming from each of the non-Rural Payments Agency executive agencies involve the VLA, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Central Science Laboratory. The figures are being worked out to deliver the efficiencies that DEFRA has to achieve.

Carcase Disposal

Paul Goodman: What recommendations her Department makes in relation to the disposal of carcases from farms.

Ben Bradshaw: Fallen stock must be disposed of in accordance with the EU animal by-products regulation. An industry-led fallen stock collection scheme, backed by Government funding, is expected to be introduced this autumn.

Paul Goodman: Given that carcases now cannot be buried on farms and that the new scheme has not come in yet, what would the Minister say to farmers in my constituency who are quite reasonably concerned that they cannot find an outlet for disposal at reasonable cost?

Ben Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me with details of where farmers are having that sort of difficulty, I will happily look into them. Farmers should be complying with the regulations, but the Government made it clear when we initially signalled our intention to set up the fallen stock scheme that, until the scheme was up and running, we would expect the local authorities, which are the enforcers in this matter, to act with a light touch.

James Gray: Since we last met at oral questions, the Minister has answered a series of written questions on the statistics relating to disposal of carcases. He made it plain that DEFRA does not collect statistics on whether carcases are disposed of in hunt kennels, knackers' yards or elsewhere and does not know how carcases are disposed of. How does he account for his answer at a previous DEFRA oral question time, that
	"hunt kennels play a role, but it is small in terms of the amount of stock they collect."—[Official Report, 20 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1079.]
	As he does not collect the figures and does not know who disposes of carcases at the moment, how can he, or for that matter the chairman of the National Fallen Stock Company, know what effect the abolition of hunting would have on the disposal of dead stock?

Ben Bradshaw: We do not have the exact figures, but the "small" role to which I referred in my previous answer was based on estimates and the agreed view of the National Farmers Union, the renderers and the knackers. They have made it clear on many occasions that, while hunts play a role in some parts of the country, they collect a relatively small quantity of fallen stock and the renderers and knackers have ample capacity to fulfil the role 100 per cent. should the hunts not be interested in doing it any more.

GM Crops

Joan Ruddock: When the Government will consult on a regime of co-existence and liability for GM crops.

Elliot Morley: I announced our consultation plans last Friday. We will first hold a number of workshops with stakeholders over the summer and early autumn. Then we will publish our specific proposals and options, on which everyone will be able to comment.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is aware that our constituents do not wish to see the contamination of non-GM crops with GM crops, yet he told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that the UK was legally obliged to ensure that co-existence measures did not go beyond those necessary to meet the 0.9 per cent. labelling threshold. Is my hon. Friend aware that Germany's co-existence plans go substantially beyond those thresholds? Is he really telling us that the UK cannot establish stronger co-existence measures designed to ensure that contamination is at a lower level than the EU labelling threshold or to avoid it?

Elliot Morley: We have already said that in our consultation we will look into the option, for organic crops, of a threshold lower than 0.9 per cent., but I repeat that 0.9 per cent. is the legal threshold set by the EU and we are obliged to take that into account in our calculations. I am not aware that Germany is doing anything different. In fact, I understand that, unlike the UK, Germany is applying a 0.9 per cent. threshold to the organic sector, so we are going a bit beyond what the Germans propose.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister confirm that the new co-existence and liability regime will be in place and on the statute books before any further commercial planting of GM crops or any further trial planting?

Elliot Morley: Trial plantings are a different proposition. We do not have any applications at present, but the idea of trials is to examine the real concerns that people have about environmental impact, and we make no apology for that. We have led the way in ascertaining the biodiversity impact of various GM crops, and no one else internationally has done that on the scale that we have.
	We are consulting on the timing of the regime. The original timetable was designed to bring the scheme in at the beginning of 2005, but we are unlikely to see commercial plantings in this country before 2007–08, so there will be no difficulty having the scheme in place, up and running and agreed before commercial planting takes place.

Alan Simpson: The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about consultation mentions co-existence, and I have no doubt that it will address issues relating to thresholds and separation distances. However, I am concerned that the letter makes no mention of liability. Given the biotechnology industry's central concern about not being held liable, can my hon. Friend the Minister give the House an assurance that liability will be at the centre of the discussions and that we will not end up with proposals that show that the greatest separation distance in our policy is that between contamination and those who should be held liable for it?

Elliot Morley: We have made it clear that we are responding to the recommendations of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on both co-existence and liability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined that in a statement that she made to the House. In parallel with the consultation on co-existence, we are also consulting on the basis of the liability scheme, how it should work and who should be responsible.

Emissions Trading Scheme

Andrew MacKinlay: If she will make a statement on the proposed allocation of carbon allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme.

Margaret Beckett: The UK's national allocation plan was approved by the European Commission on 7 July. The number of allowances in the UK plan that was submitted to the Commission is based on the UK as a whole reducing emissions by 15.2 per cent. by 2010. The allocation for the second phase of the scheme will be based on the trading sectors' contribution to meeting the UK goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide from base year levels by 2010.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that I wrote to her at the end of May, and I followed up with another letter, drawing attention—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) does not mind, I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a constituency matter. I would have thought that he would be interested in the fact that I wrote to her in May and have not had a reply. If the Opposition were any good, they would be pursuing that.
	My Tilbury power station is unfairly disadvantaged by the proposal and, overall, some of the proposals are anti-competitive and do not reflect the expertise, innovation and investment proposals of many good power stations. I am meeting people from Tilbury power station tomorrow, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will help me by agreeing that she or one of her junior Ministers will meet us to discuss the issue. We could then show that there is room for improvement and fairness in the second phase she mentioned, to the advantage of my Tilbury power station, the industry as a whole and the United Kingdom. My Tilbury power station is being required to make a cut of 44 per cent. in emissions, compared with a national average of 15 per cent. That is unfair.

Margaret Beckett: I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend had not received an answer to his letter. I was not aware of that until I saw the proposed answer to his question. I apologise, and I assure him that an answer is urgently in preparation as we speak. We will, of course, take very seriously the concerns that he expresses. He will know, too, that the Government have tried hard to strike a balance between what is necessary to make the emissions trading scheme work, which is in everybody's interest, what is necessary to meet the criteria for a satisfactory allocation plan that would stand a chance of being approved by the Commission and competitiveness issues. We believe that in almost all cases the concerns that have been expressed about competitiveness are not well founded. Many companies have assumed that others, elsewhere in Europe, would be treated differently. We have been urging the Commission to be both robust in its assessment of national allocation plan proposals and transparent in reaching its decisions. My hon. Friend may not be aware that several countries have already been asked to revise their initial proposals.

Departmental Job Losses

Vincent Cable: What net reductions in staff levels she expects in her Department and the agencies for which she is responsible as a consequence of the spending review; and what estimate she has made of the savings accruing therefrom.

Alun Michael: The number of posts across core DEFRA and its executive agencies will be reduced by about 2,400 by the end of 2007–08.

Vincent Cable: Following the headline announcements about net job losses of 2,400 and 390 relocations, when does the Minister propose to set out precisely where those cuts will occur? In particular, how many of them will flow from the announcement made yesterday about the creation of the new integrated institution? Will that institution be located in London or elsewhere?

Alun Michael: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction of staff numbers and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday are both about increasing and improving delivery and achieving greater efficiency? They are not just about random numbers. The majority of job reductions will be achieved through the implementation of change programmes; for instance, the Rural Payments Agency change programme will lose about 1,600 posts and change programmes in finance, IT and human resources will contribute about 250 posts—some of that has already happened. We need to produce an efficiency delivery plan and when that is completed, the Office of Government Commerce will look at it and make a report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It will then be available on the website.

Nigel Evans: As the Minister takes the axe to jobs in his Department, will he also look into the number of special advisers—who are termed civil servants—which has more than doubled since 1997? How many special advisers will face the axe?

Alun Michael: That is a repetitive question. They are not the same at all. We are looking into the contribution made by civil servants and considering how to use core civil service staff appropriately; for instance, through improving quality by the more efficient delivery of IT. Rather than examining serious questions on the improvement of efficiency, the hon. Gentleman is just trying a cheap jab.

Animal Transportation

David Kidney: What plans she has to change the rules relating to the transportation of live animals.

Ben Bradshaw: Following the failure earlier this year to agree new EU rules on animal welfare during transport, the Government's priority is now to ensure that the current rules are enforced properly in all member states.

David Kidney: I continue to receive representations from constituents about maximum journey times and travel conditions for live animals, as may other Members and Ministers. The draft Animal Welfare Bill contains a new rule-making power, so is it the Government's intention to make new rules to provide for the more humane transportation of live animals in Europe, and will they do that whether or not they have the support of other EU nations?

Ben Bradshaw: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We were deeply disappointed that, despite the best efforts of the Irish presidency and countries of a like mind to the United Kingdom, which wanted strict limits on journeys, we were unable to achieve a majority and that in fact the less welfare-minded countries were able to block any meaningful improvement on the status quo. However, we think that implementing the existing rules properly in a number of countries—not least the accession countries—will lead to a big improvement in animal welfare overall. My hon. Friend is right: the Animal Welfare Bill, which we published last week, introduces for the first time a duty of care, and will apply not only to pets but to all animals. That should help to improve animal welfare across the board.

Farm Produce

David Cameron: What discussions she has had with (a) the National Farmers Union and (b) other farming organisations about ensuring a strong domestic market for the produce of British farmers.

Alun Michael: All Ministers at DEFRA, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, regularly meet farming organisations, including the NFU. Our policies are designed to give farming a sustainable future, which will be helped by the hard-won reforms to the common agricultural policy.

David Cameron: Does the Minister agree that the best friend of the British farmer is the well-informed British consumer insisting on quality British produce? Does he agree that it is difficult to insist on quality British produce without proper labelling? Will he explain the Government's position in principle on country of origin labelling and why they cannot do more in practice on supermarket pre-cooked meals, which often include produce from foreign countries where welfare standards are low and food is often pumped full of drugs?

Alun Michael: A well-informed consumer is certainly a good friend to the farmer. Another good friend is the Government, who have assisted the farming industry with their marketing. Consumers have responded positively to the many brands that are now identified as local and regional in this country, which has enabled many farmers to be successful. Linking farmers with their markets and what consumers want creates a two-way process between the consumer and the farmer, which is the best way forward. That approach underpins our plans for a sustainable future for farming and food.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business?

Peter Hain: The business for the week after the summer recess will be as follows:
	Tuesday 7 September—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 8 September—Opposition day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 9 September—A debate on the European constitution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 10 September—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first sitting week in October will be:
	Thursday 14 October—A debate on the UN international year to commemorate the struggle against slavery and its abolition.
	As we rise for the summer recess, I thank on behalf of the House all the staff of the House for their hard work, courtesy and support for all of us. I also record my personal thanks to the parliamentary Clerks across Whitehall for their assistance and support. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, all hon. Members and, more importantly, the staff of the House a happy and, I hope, relaxing recess.

Oliver Heald: May I associate all on these Benches with those remarks about the staff, the Serjeant at Arms, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerks Department?
	The Leader of the House has announced the business for September, but may I ask for an urgent oral statement later today from the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the jurisdiction of the ombudsman in the reopened inquiry into Equitable Life? The ombudsman has stated that the Government Actuary's Department is not within her jurisdiction, but that she would like to include it in her inquiry, and she has written to the Minister requesting that that happen. The matter is hugely important to our constituents, who have lost so much financially through the crisis, not to mention the misery, anxiety and distress that they are suffering. May we have an urgent oral statement and will the Leader of the House ensure that the necessary order to make that happen is laid today?
	After yesterday's announcement of deep cuts to our armed forces, may we have an assurance that a full debate will take place in Government time when we come back after the recess?
	Yesterday, the Leader of the House issued a written statement designed to stop the abuse by Ministers of the reply, "I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library", which is a way of burying bad news because the true reply never appears in Hansard. Will he consider making a short oral statement in September on that and on delays in replies to parliamentary questions? His solution to the problem is that Ministers will simply abandon questions unanswered at the end of a Session.
	Last year, there were 1,550 "will write" replies, and on the last day of the Session, the Home Office alone put out more than 150 "will write" replies. Is the Leader of the House seriously saying that 1,500 questions a year will now simply be abandoned by Ministers, so that instead of burying bad news, they never give it at all? Will he also explain why, according to the Library, there are still 427 of those replies where Ministers have never got around to writing and placing the letter in the Library?
	Finally, as an end-of-term report—a sort of tidying-up exercise—can the Leader of the House tell us now, or will he make a statement, more than six months after these matters were first raised with him, what he is doing to review the Osmotherly rules, so that Select Committees can receive the documents and witnesses that they need so that we do not have to call in an outsider every time we want a serious inquiry? What is he doing to give legal effect to the Sessional Orders; what is he doing to have a vote on the Tuesday sitting hours; and what is he doing to change the Standing Orders to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to sit in public, as it has asked to do? In his youth, he used to take direct action. He would reclaim the streets from the National Front. He would tear up cricket pitches to stop the tours. May we have some of that sense of urgency now with those parliamentary questions?

Peter Hain: That was a nice seasonal rant—was it not?—and very enjoyable it was too. [Hon. Members: "Answer then."] I am about to give the answers. On the Osmotherly rules, I will meet the Liaison Committee at its meeting, probably in October, at a date still to be fixed. The Liaison Committee has asked me to report back to it on that issue, and I am doing precisely that.
	On the Sessional Orders, when we are ready to come forward, we will do so, as I have already promised. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman asks me about the sitting hours and whether the European Scrutiny Committee should sit in public. He asks me what is going on. He is a member of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair. In fact, he sits right next to me, and quite a congenial companion he is. Both subjects—sitting hours and providing the House with greater opportunities to scrutinise European matters—are before us now. In fact, we were discussing sitting hours yesterday, so I do not know what on earth he is on about. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the standard of those questions: the shadow Leader of the House is not even in the shadow Cabinet. [Interruption.] The previous shadow Leader of the House was in the shadow Cabinet, of course.

Eric Forth: Look what happened to me!

Peter Hain: Yes, look what happened to the right hon. Gentleman. His successor has been demoted—[Interruption.] Since I have been provoked in such an outrageous fashion, let me say that it is interesting that the shadow Leader of the Lords is in the shadow Cabinet, whereas the shadow Leader of the House is not. It rather indicates the Conservatives' view of the House.
	On Equitable Life, I understand the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. There is real concern among policyholders, and right hon. and hon. Members have properly raised this with me in the past. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—who, of course, is an Officer of the House—is entirely independent of the Government. The decision that she made and the reasons for it are matters for her, but we will co-operate fully with the commissioner's investigation. Only this week we received a request from the commissioner to extend her jurisdiction to cover the Government Actuary's Department. We are considering that request and will respond to the commissioner as soon as possible.
	On defence, which the hon. Gentleman also raised with me, he referred to defence cuts.

Oliver Heald: Deep cuts.

Peter Hain: Well, we know about deep cuts—the deep cuts mounted by the Conservative party when in government. The Conservatives cut planned defence spending by 15 per cent. when the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was Minister of State for the Armed Forces between 1994 and 1997. We have now had the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. In real terms, the increase will be 1.4 per cent. a year over the next three years—a further £3.7 billion of defence spending over the spending review period, which will continue to make our fighting forces the best in the world.
	On the "I will write" issue, the shadow Leader of the House must do his job and try to oppose me. I understand all that—we all understand it—but he really should concentrate on the facts. What I did in this instance—with your encouragement, Mr. Speaker, because we share concern about the "I will write" situation—was to say that rather than a Minister replying, "I will write" and placing a letter in the House of Commons Library, which means that is not accessible for inspection by hon. Members with ease or members of the public, the replies will be put online and in Hansard so that everyone will be able to see them. That represents an advance for parliamentary scrutiny, so I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will bury bad news. The replies will go online immediately and will be printed in Hansard. The fact that letters that Ministers would previously have put in the Library will be available for inspection by everybody represents an advance in parliamentary accountability, which has been a feature of everything that I have done in the past year as Leader of the House.

David Heyes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great consternation in my constituency and, indeed, the whole of Greater Manchester about the announcement on Tuesday that cast a shadow over the expansion of light rail in our area? Expectations for Metrolink are at the heart of all our ambitions for economic regeneration in Tameside and Oldham, so its loss would be a tragedy. I am heartened that the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed that the door has not closed on Metrolink and that his officials will work with the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to find a way forward. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that there will be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House after the recess to report on the progress that I hope will be made during the summer to get the Metrolink extension to Ashton-under-Lyne and Oldham back on track?

Peter Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. I know that there are real worries about the matter, because it affects the constituency of the Deputy Leader of the House and he has expressed the same concerns to me. The tram has been an important part of the transport network in the area and I know that a meeting is taking place with the transport authority. The Secretary of State for Transport will want to study closely the representation that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) makes to me.

Paul Tyler: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the comments made about the staff of the House, although I would not like anybody to think that they are on holiday throughout the whole recess any more than most Members? A great many of the staff of the House work hard during the recess to ensure that we can work efficiently from the moment when we come back in September.
	I am hardly reassured by what the Leader of the House said about Equitable Life, so I hope that he can be a bit more specific. The matter is important and urgent, and many of our constituents are anxious about what will happen next.
	May we have an early statement—or, even better, a debate in Government time—when we come back in September on school funding? Hon. Members will recall that a year ago, many schools were placed in an extraordinary state of financial turmoil following the Government's re-ordering of local government and school budgets. The impact of those proposals was compounded by radical changes to pensions, national insurance contributions and the standards fund, so governing bodies and heads were put in a difficult position. The Secretary of State for Education then accused local authorities of pocketing £500 million for other purposes, and when that accusation wore thin, head teachers were accused of being financially incompetent.
	As the Leader of the House will know, this week the Audit Commission published an important report on education funding, which made it absolutely clear that the fault lay almost entirely with the Government and especially with the Secretary of State. Will he arrange an early opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House and apologise for falsely accusing everybody else for what went wrong, and especially to apologise to governing bodies and heads?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that many members of staff continue to work by maintaining the House and doing all sorts of preparatory work for our return after the recess. I understand the point that he makes about Equitable Life, which the shadow Leader of the House raised. The Financial Secretary is seized of the issue, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that she made a statement to the House on the matter and faced detailed questions.
	On the question of school funding, obviously mistakes were made—there is no question about that—as the Audit Commission points out, and responsibility for them has been allocated. We are now over that period. I would not have guessed from the hon. Gentleman's question that education spending at the end of the spending review will be £12 billion higher. That is an enormous increase over and above what has been provided for. We have a fantastic record in education, with more than 28,000 extra teachers recruited, 105,000 more school support staff, the best ever GCSE and A-level results, and average spending per pupil up by £800 in real terms compared with the Conservatives' miserable record when they were in power.

Lorna Fitzsimons: May I further add to the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) for an urgent debate on the future of light rail in Government time when we return in September? The constituencies surrounding Greater Manchester, specifically Oldham and Rochdale, are concerned about the continuing extension of light rail. As has been said, it is at the heart of the economic regeneration. Although we welcome the Secretary of State's moves to help ensure that we get an affordable scheme, we need that to happen urgently. A debate in Government time will add to the sense of urgency and reassure the people we represent that it is not "never", but it just needs to be more affordable.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which she properly raises on behalf of her constituency. The Metrolink extension is important. I also remind her, however—no doubt she would be the first to say this, if she had the opportunity—that we have seen enormous investment and improvements in the dreadful legacy of public transport that we inherited. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys since May 1997 and more than 1,500 extra rail services are timetabled every week day. Some 19 new rail stations have been built, nine reopened and more than 2,000 improved, and 34,000 new buses have been introduced since we came to power. That is a pretty impressive record compared with the dreadful one we inherited.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware of how desperately disappointed many people in Britain will be that, once again, there is no time for a debate on the abolition of fox hunting? Does not that mean that there is no prospect of getting legislation through by the next election? Is he aware that many of those who voted Labour years ago feel cheated because they were given the impression and the promise that time would be given at an early stage to make a decision on fox hunting? He should do something about that and give the House of Commons the opportunity to decide the issue.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a welcome, if unusual, advocate for Labour voters. I made it clear last week, and have done so before, that we intend to resolve the matter. I said last week that I would not make an announcement on the subject today, and I have not.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that when he made those statements about getting rid of fox hunting, he almost gave me a wink and a nod that it would be dealt with when we return in September. We know that it will not happen in the first week and he conveniently said nothing about the second week. Do I take it as read that we will deal with it in that second week?

Peter Hain: That is foxy question. I am not sure that winks and nods are appropriate for the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box. I think they might be spotted by you, Mr. Speaker, and others. It is normal not to announce all the business now for when we return in more than six weeks' time.

George Young: May I put to the Leader of the House an alternative topic for debate in the second week in September? He wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and me regretting that he could not find time before the summer recess for a debate on the Procedure Committee reports, including the one on Sessional Orders. He will know that the eyesore and disturbance in Parliament square continues. Can we have that debate on the Sessional Orders report when we return in September? It is urgent, in any event, because the date for the next Session is advancing quickly.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman properly raises. We are all unhappy about the eyesore and you, Mr. Speaker, have persistently raised the matter with me. It is not easy to resolve. It may require a change of law, for example, and we are in the process of deciding how to move forward. We will bring the Sessional Orders report to the Floor of the House as soon as we can, but I cannot say whether it will be in the second week of September.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to give a splendid present to virtually everyone in the parliamentary Labour party—I imagine that 90 per cent. of us would regard it as such—by telling us that the Parliament Act will be used to make sure that the Hunting Bill becomes law? Is he aware that we will continue to raise the issue at every opportunity in the House of Commons, as I am doing now, in the parliamentary Labour party and outside until we get a firm pledge that the Government will ensure that a House of Lords veto on the matter is to be overcome, the wishes and decision of the elected Chamber will be honoured and respected, and hence the Bill will become law?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend mentions splendid presents. When I was a boy I always looked forward to Christmas, rather than the summer, for those, and I advise him to bear that in mind.

Nigel Dodds: There continues to be a serious issue in Northern Ireland of racially motivated attacks on innocent people and families. The latest such deplorable attack took place last night on an Asian family in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and suggest that such deplorable attacks, and what can be done about them, may be a suitable subject for debate in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman understands that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee can meet in Northern Ireland only with the agreement of all parties. Obviously, this incident is very serious, and I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of it and will bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan have had to be postponed due to the terrible violence in that country and that the promises made by NATO to increase the troops in the country to ensure security for the elections have not been fulfilled? Now that the presidential election date has been set for 9 October, will he do everything in his power to ensure that NATO troops are in place well before that date, so that the courageous Afghans who have come forward to be registered for the elections—some have died in the process—are given the strongest impression that when we said that we would not walk away from that country, we really meant it?

Peter Hain: The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we will not turn our backs on the long-suffering Afghanis, and my hon. Friend is right to re-emphasise that point on her own behalf. We continue to work very closely with President Karzai, the United Nations and other countries throughout the world to make sure that a decent future is built for the people of Afghanistan, notwithstanding the problems there.

Hugo Swire: Depressingly, but all too predictably, in her statement yesterday on the future of the rural economy the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave scant acknowledgement to the plight of many of the country's farmers. Does the Leader of the House share the concern of many members of the Women's Institute in East Devon about the continuing plight of Devon's dairy farmers? Can he guarantee us a debate on the future of the country's dairy farmers, in Government time, when Parliament returns in September?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, and the Secretary of State will obviously note very carefully the representations that he has made.

Alan Simpson: May I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the zeal that he brings to reforming the proceedings of the House and increasing our ability genuinely to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account? Does he accept, however, that one area in which we have been unsuccessful in making progress is the US-UK mutual defence agreement, which can be renewed for a further 10 years under the Ponsonby rule without the House having any right to scrutinise it? In view of the fact that a legal opinion issued today says that renewal of the agreement would put Britain in breach of the non-proliferation treaty, will the Leader of the House, first, agree to look at that legal opinion and, secondly, arrange a full day's debate in the House on the renewal of the agreement?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has long experience of raising these matters, and he is acknowledged throughout the House as an expert on them, but I do not agree that we have no opportunity to scrutinise this matter. He has just asked me a question about it. He is able to ask questions of the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary, depending on which aspect he wishes to raise, to table early-day motions and to apply for debates, and he can continue to do so.

Peter Lilley: Can the Leader of the House explain why no decision has been announced while the House is sitting about the appointment of a British Commissioner to the European Commission? Can he reassure us that the Prime Minister is not having second thoughts about appointing the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who, as someone who has resigned twice from the Cabinet, strikes many Conservative Members as the ideal candidate for a post that is unaccountable and unelected and from which no one would dream of resigning for the sort of outrageous behaviour for which he has been responsible in the past, and to be a member of a body that, when it collectively resigns, immediately reappoints itself?

Peter Hain: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House of the situation: European Commissioners have always been chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, and the appointments have not been subject to parliamentary debates, so the question whether that happens during the recess is not material. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of the timetable in Brussels. The President-elect of the Commission, former Prime Minister Barroso, is appearing before the European Parliament at the moment. His nomination as President should be approved by the European Parliament tomorrow; he will then take office on 1 November. In the meantime, the 24 member states will offer their nominations for their Commissioners over the coming weeks, and in August President-elect Barroso will agree the appointments with each of the member states. That list will then be agreed by qualified majority voting and submitted, before the end of August, to the European Parliament. The Parliament then prepares for hearings with Commissioners-Designate, which will take place from 4 to 14 October. From 25 to 28 October, the Parliament will vote to approve the new Commission as a body.

David Kidney: It is now more than three years since we last had a debate on road safety in Government time. Given that since then road deaths have stuck stubbornly at about 3,400 a year, given the public outcry about soft sentences for drivers who kill innocent passers-by, and given the lively debates here about speed cameras and road traffic policing, is it not time in the autumn for another debate on road safety in Government time?

Peter Hain: If my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will have an opportunity to take part in an Adjournment debate on road safety on the very day that we come back, when he can raise those important issues.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider making a statement when we return about the transferring of parliamentary questions? I point out to him a question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I drew as No. 3 today. I was told by DEFRA that the issue did not relate to it, so its Ministers could not answer and it was transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, on 10 March my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked a similar question and DEFRA gave an answer.
	I am told that part of the reason for transfers is that Ministers are not allowed to answer questions on subjects that they feel may come within the remit of another Department. That does not seem to stop Ministers answering such questions on the radio; why cannot they answer them in the House?

Peter Hain: As a Government, we have a proud record of answering questions. As a result of the modernisation of the House, the provision of extra Westminster Hall debates, the strengthening of Select Committees and the fact that the Prime Minister comes before the Liaison Committee, we have advanced parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in a number of areas. That has made it much easier to keep Ministers on their toes. On that issue, I am absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman is simply missing the point. The other point that he made, about transferring questions, he raised as a point of order with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and it is not a matter for me.

Gordon Prentice: Sir Hayden Phillips delivered his report on reform of the honours system to the Prime Minister last Friday, and we have pretty radical proposals from the Public Administration Committee on how the honours system could be recast. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time on that important issue?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has consistently taken an interest in how the honours system is operated. The PAC's interesting report needs to be studied; the Government will do that, and we will consider Sir Hayden's recommendations alongside that.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, as promised, the Government will publish a draft Civil Service Bill in this Session? Will he explain the Government's apparent tardiness in doing so, given that two excellent drafts have already been published, one by the Public Administration Committee, and the other a private Member's Bill promoted by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)?

Peter Hain: There is no issue—the question is simply one of publishing at the right time. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend was quite sympathetic in his responses to our hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) and for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), but I put it to him that there is real anger in Greater Manchester about the apparent decision to drop the Metrolink scheme. The regional newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, described it as a betrayal. Will my right hon. Friend take that message back to the Secretary of State for Transport and make sure that he understands that Greater Manchester expects him to return with proposals agreed with the passenger transport authority and the contractors, and to ensure that our conurbation has the Metrolink that it badly needs for both public transport and environmental reasons?

Peter Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend properly raises. Given that he has raised it, I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take even more careful note of it than before. However, part of the anger to which my hon. Friend referred might have arisen from a misconception that the north-west of England is somehow cross-subsidising Crossrail in London. That is simply not the case. There is a long way to go before the funding mechanism for Crossrail is put in place, not least the negotiation of the passage of a private Bill through Parliament.

Michael Weir: No mention was made of the Royal Marines in yesterday's statement on defence, yet after I left the Chamber I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence informing me that RM Condor at Arbroath in my constituency is under review. Any threat to the base has a huge impact on the local economy. Does the Leader of the House think it appropriate that information is released in such a way? May we have a debate in Government time on the effect of base closures on local communities?

Peter Hain: It is important that local MPs be properly notified. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wants to do that, and that the process of consultation is continuing.

Stephen McCabe: May we have an early debate on the extraordinary decision by the Tory-Liberal coalition in Birmingham to pull the £2 billion highway private finance initiative scheme at the eleventh hour? Such a debate is needed for two reasons: first, we need to understand how any private company can be expected to commit the necessary resources and submit a bid by August for a project that might now not go ahead; secondly, I want to know whether the people of Birmingham will be liable to pay compensation to the companies for the losses that they have incurred. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on how to bring some sanity to bear on this latest act of civic vandalism?

Peter Hain: That does sound like a bit of a shambles from the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration. I was interested to read in an editorial in The Birmingham Post of 16 July:
	"The message from the council's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration, whether intentional or not, was one of dithering while the roads crumble."
	That sounds spot-on to me.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House, most uncharacteristically, was over-prepared in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), may I invite him to have a second go but to leave his notes behind? Does he agree that the appointment of a European Commissioner is very important to this country, that it is vital that the right person be appointed, and that it would be appropriate to have a statement on that appointment, especially if the appointment proves to be controversial, as the newspapers lead us to believe it will be?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman courteously invites me to respond in greater detail than before. I am sorry, but I am unable to respond to that courteous invitation.

Julie Morgan: This morning, I received a telephone call from one of my constituents who works in Tesco house in Cardiff to say that this afternoon Tesco will publicly announce a further 160 job losses in its head office in Cardiff. That is in addition to the 230 jobs lost last year. The jobs are to be outsourced to Bangalore. I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises how great the disappointment is, especially after all the reassurances that Tesco gave. Many long-standing employees will lose their jobs. Will he arrange an urgent debate on the issue when we return?

Peter Hain: I know that the management of Tesco will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments, because there will be real concern in her constituency about the job losses. If anything can be done, I hope that her representations will help it to be done. Tesco is now the biggest private sector employer in the country and therefore very important, but I am sure that it will review the situation in Cardiff in the light of her comments.

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House try a lot harder in respect of Equitable Life? He will know—or perhaps he does not—that on today's Order Paper, No. 32 in the list of these peculiar written ministerial statements that we now have is an announcement that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will say something about "Extending the Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (The Ombudsman)." Is that a tease or a hint? Will he please be a lot more specific about what the Government will do in response to the request by the ombudsman in respect of Equitable Life? It is not good enough to keep hundreds of thousands of people waiting and frustrated again and again on a matter that should be straightforward for the Government. If there is any transparency and decency in the Government, let us have an answer.

Peter Hain: The first part of my answer is that I do not accept that to make a written ministerial statement is peculiar. On the contrary, it is perfectly proper to use such a statement as an alternative to the previous practice—with which, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was happy—whereby the Government were required to plant questions in order to provide information to the House by answering them. Today's practice is far better: Ministers can make written ministerial statements in which they give the information that the House is entitled to have.

Brian Iddon: When we had a drugs tsar, he produced an annual report and we debated misuse of drugs on the Floor of the House. Since then, the National Treatment Agency has been set up and things have moved on in other ways, but as chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, I ask my right hon. Friend to reinstate the annual debate on the subject.

Peter Hain: I shall certainly give it consideration. Coming from the chairman of the all-party group, that question is important. However, my hon. Friend knows that drugs misuse is high on the Home Secretary's agenda and that he has plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. Friend on the direction of Government policy. In addition, he can apply for a debate himself if he feels that one is needed.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House make time available to debate the merits of introducing a Health and Safety Executive business awards scheme in conjunction with the insurance industry? Small and medium-sized companies that have a claim-free record and those that have made significant improvements to health and safety at work could be recognised. Does he agree that such a scheme operating in all regions of the UK would publicise good practice in the workplace, focus attention on the need to continue to raise health and safety standards, and bring to the attention of business the benefits of having no claims when negotiating employer and public liability insurance?

Peter Hain: That is an interesting idea on which Ministers will reflect. We want to give every encouragement to good practice in industry, and if an awards scheme is regarded as a sensible way to achieve that, no doubt the idea will be taken forward.

Harry Barnes: Yesterday, a consolidated document on parental separation was published. When will we have a chance to be consulted and have a debate on that document? The key question that some fathers whose marriages have broken up are asking is that care of the children should be arranged strictly 50:50. I have a constituent who has that arrangement, under which the child benefit and child tax credit go to the mother only, and as a consequence the Child Support Agency payments have to be made from the father to the mother, despite there being a strict arrangement that it is 50:50, where there is no exact partner with care and no exact absent parent. This matter could be thrown into the debate.

Peter Hain: It is quite proper that that should be thrown into the debate. We all have cases like that, which are highly complicated and very distressing, especially for the children involved. That is precisely why we brought forward the consultation and the written ministerial statement that accompanied it. My hon. Friend has the opportunity to respond to that, as do other Members, and their responses would be welcome.

Bob Spink: In an end-of-term spirit, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on his wit and great courtesy—[Interruption.] I am speaking genuinely and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Would he, even at this late stage, consider extending today's debate, the main debate, so that we have time, because there is great cross-party support on this, to debate and welcome the great dedication, professionalism and care of the hospice movement? We know that the Government are giving more money to the national health service, and we are very grateful for that, but equally we know that that money is not filtering through to the hospice movement, which is currently seriously underfunded. We need to find ways to get the new Government money that is going into the health service through to the excellent hospice movement.

Peter Hain: I always welcome the hon. Gentleman's questions at business questions, and since he has praised me, I will welcome them even more in future. He has shown great dedication on the matter of the hospice movement. We all admire the attention that he has given it and how he has consistently ensured that it is an issue before the House and therefore before the Government, so that the hospice movement is taken forward and given extra support, and I applaud his efforts.

Clive Betts: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to today's written ministerial statement on the Government's response to the Office of Fair Trading report on estate agents? I ask him to arrange an early debate on the matter so that I can welcome the Government's intention to table an amendment to the Housing Bill, whereby all estate agents will have to join an independent redress scheme, and welcome also the consultation document to consider amending the Estate Agents Act 1979 later in the year, to give further protection to consumers. I regret that the comprehensive licensing of estate agencies is ruled out, but I understand that the door is still open possibly to require all estate agents to join a professional body from which they could be expelled for inappropriate practice. It is a step forward and I would like an early debate so that I can welcome the steps that the Government have taken.

Peter Hain: I hope that the Government will listen closely to my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do so, because my hon. Friend has displayed a great deal of energy in order to take forward reform in this area, and many home buyers will welcome that and applaud his efforts.

Graham Brady: May I add to the calls for an early statement on the future of the Metrolink in Greater Manchester, a great initiative that was put in place under a Conservative Government? An early statement would be an opportunity for the present Government to explain why, in spite of their supposed commitment to public transport, they are apparently incapable of taking that forward.

Peter Hain: I understand that the cost estimate for the Metrolink project has increased considerably, perhaps to nearly double that estimate. I am happy to praise the odd thing that the Conservatives did and this sounds like one of them, but it is hard to find other such examples that deserve praise. However, since we are in a generous seasonal spirit I will give the hon. Gentleman that point.

John Robertson: Those of us on the Government Benches appreciate that an increase in real terms to the defence budget is an increase. Unfortunately, to the general public the reduction in servicemen would appear to give a contrary view. Is my right hon. Friend aware that during consideration of the Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation Bill, great reservations were expressed by Members on both sides of the House, given that about 10 per cent. of servicemen and women who were leaving the services were ending up on the dole queue? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on how he proposes to look after the 10 per cent. who are already on the dole queue, and the possible numbers who are going to make the percentage even greater?

Peter Hain: Anyone faced with the prospect of going on the dole is in a situation that no Government would want to encourage or to support. What is planned in this instance is that by a combination of natural wastage and early retirement, and procedures like that, nobody will end up being made redundant and without a job. Of course, in today's economy, as a result of the Government's very successful economic policies, employment is rising year by year and month by month and those who are in the unfortunate situation of losing their jobs, wherever the sector might be, have plenty of alternative job opportunities as a result of our economic success and the stability that we have brought. I am sure that that will apply in the few cases that might arise.

David Heath: There is a great deal of concern in a number of constituencies, certainly in my own, about the instances of abuse of the planning system by Travellers on private land. The concern of hon. Members such as me who want adequate provision for Travellers is that this is poisoning the relationship between settled communities and the Travellers' community. We are told that Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are bringing forward proposals to strengthen enforcement powers for local authorities; is there an opportunity for a statement on that matter during the two-week spill-over in September, and will we have the details of those proposals in the near future?

Peter Hain: The Deputy Prime Minister is sitting almost next to me and has heard the hon. Gentleman's eloquent argument, and will want to take close account of it. The Minister responsible has been gripped on the issue, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—he is nodding in acknowledgement—and I think we all applaud what the Minister is seeking to do. Any additional representations that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make will be listened to.

Nigel Evans: The Leader of the House has gone through the rather arcane and mysterious process by which our EU Commissioner will be named and selected. The Leader of the House believes in modernisation; is it not about time we chucked out the process to which I have referred and modernised the system so that the Prime Minister's nomination came before the House? Would it not have been far better—the Prime Minister has made his mind up, from what we can make out in the newspapers—if the name had been announced this week, and we then had a full debate? We could have voted on whether we thought that our one EU Commissioner ought to be the person selected by the Prime Minister.

Peter Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe everything that he reads in the newspapers? In which case—

Nigel Evans: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: He does! This is a novel form of behaviour for Conservative Members.

Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House following his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) concerning the Northern Ireland Grand Committee? Would it be possible for the objections to meeting there to be published so that we might know why a party—we suspect that it might even be a sister party of the Government—keeps objecting? It seems a denigration of democracy that the people of Northern Ireland cannot see their own Grand Committee meeting occasionally in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: This is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for the parties involved and ultimately for the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to make progress on this matter, but it is not something for me.

Peter Luff: May we have an urgent debate on antisocial behaviour? The Government have tried to be tough on antisocial behaviour, with varying degrees of success, but they have done nothing to be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. May I refer the Leader of the House to the marvellous superhero, Jo Frost, of "Supernanny", whose wonderful combination of old-fashioned discipline in a modern context every Wednesday on Channel 4 is doing more to be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour in families up and down the land than the Government have done in seven years.

Peter Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his point powerfully, and he has just done so. I do not quarrel with him for that. But we have seen the longest and most sustained fall in crime for a century. Antisocial behaviour is one of the areas that the Government have prioritised for tackling, seeing 11,000 more police officers recruited, more community support officers and more community wardens. We have taken legislation through the House and the other place on antisocial behaviour when, often, we have not had the support of either Conservative Members or Liberal Democrat Members, who have appeared to turn a blind eye to antisocial behaviour, when we all know that it is one of the curses of modern life.

David Amess: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made a decision of enormous ethical significance to sanction designer babies, which goes against the spirit of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and has pre-empted the outcome of studies by two Select Committees. Will the Leader of the House allow us to have a debate in Government time on the authority's future?

Peter Hain: I shall obviously bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but he has many opportunities to raise those matters with the Secretary of State for Health, and, indeed, he can apply for an Adjournment debate himself.

Regional Assemblies

Nick Raynsford: Earlier this week, the House approved orders specifying 4 November as the date for the referendums in the three northern regions.

Hon. Members: It approved them yesterday!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was accurate.

Nick Raynsford: We introduced the orders to fulfil expectations in the regions of referendums in the autumn. Only if the orders are in place before the summer can we have a 4 November date. Yesterday, the House also approved three orders that provide for those referendums to be conducted as all-postal ballots and make provision about expense limits and referendum costs. Approval was given against the background of the Government's commitment to the House that we would not proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission's evaluation report on last June's all-postal pilots produced convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so. The commission's report was expected by 13 September. We gave our commitment because we take its views very seriously—[Interruption.] We do.
	In the debates this week, concerns were raised about all-postal ballots, following some experiences of postal voting in the recent pilots. There are differences of views on all-postal ballots across the House, with particular reservations being strongly voiced in certain localities. This week, the Electoral Commission has also announced that it intends to publish its evaluation report of the June pilots and its recommendations on the future use of all-postal ballots before Parliament returns in September. The debates demonstrated solid support for all-postal voting and the clear expectation of an early referendum in the north-east. None of the concerns raised about all-postal ballots relates to that region. On the contrary, the experience there of all-postal ballots, both in June and in earlier local election pilots, has been consistently positive. The north-east has had longer and more extensive experience of all-postal ballots than any other region, and the availability of all postal voting has been consistently welcomed by the voters.
	We have reflected on those developments, and on the range of opinions expressed during the debates on the orders. Except where there is a pressing expectation and overwhelming support for an early all-postal referendum, we have concluded that the right course is not to proceed with the orders setting up referendums on 4 November but to await the Electoral Commission's report before confirming the arrangements. We have therefore decided not to proceed with the orders for the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. Our commitment to referendums in those regions remains unchanged, but the timetable for their referendums will be affected.
	Once the House returns in September we will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on how we intend to proceed in those regions, having had the opportunity to consider carefully the commission's report. We are clear, however, that, as we are not proceeding now with the orders, there cannot be referendums on 4 November in those regions. By contrast, all that we have heard from the north-east confirms that it is right to proceed with the orders providing for all-postal referendums in the north-east on 4 November. That is what the people there want and expect, and that is what we are facilitating.
	To help people in the north-east make their decision, I am today publishing the draft Regional Assemblies Bill, including explanatory notes and regulatory impact assessment (Cm 6285) and an accompanying policy statement. Those documents set out the purposes, powers and responsibilities that we envisage for elected regional assemblies. The draft Bill and policy statement also cover the establishment, election, constitution and funding of elected assemblies. The Bill is drafted to give each general purposes of economic development, social development and the improvement and protection of the environment, as well as wide-ranging power to take action to further those purposes. There will also be detailed powers relating to specific functions.
	Since the publication of the White Paper, we have strengthened the powers of elected regional assemblies in crucial areas such as fire and rescue, stakeholder engagement and planning, and that is reflected in the Bill. We have also developed proposals on learning and skills and transport. Progress on the former is reflected in the policy statement. Under the Bill, decisions currently made by different sets of unelected bureaucrats would be taken by one democratic body elected by the people of the region. Its publication fulfils our commitment to Parliament to publish a draft Bill ahead of any referendum for an elected regional assembly. It demonstrates our commitment to establish elected assemblies where people want them, whether in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber or, in the course of time, any other region.
	The Bill will be an important tool to help the electorate in the north-east make an informed decision on whether to vote for or against an elected assembly in the referendum on 4 November. We intend to introduce a final version of the Bill in Parliament once a region has voted to establish an assembly.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

John Prescott: You've got the junior doing it!

Hon. Members: You got your junior to do it!

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should have some calm in the Chamber.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he had made the statement my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) would have replied.
	The statement just delivered by the Minister for Local and Regional Government is quite incredible, completely unbelievable and utterly cynical. Only yesterday, he urged the House to support the principle of three referendums, but he has the gall and temerity to return within 24 hours to say that he has changed his mind. Only yesterday, he denied that he would do what I predicted. He said that
	"we shall . . . be prepared not to proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, we must obviously wait to see the evidence."—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 379.]
	The evidence will appear in the Electoral Commission report, which will not be published until 27 August, so why has he suddenly changed his mind and decided not to wait for it? Is he as astonished as we are about what he has been sent here to do? Can he assure us that when he addressed the House yesterday, he was speaking, to use a well worn phrase, "in good faith"?
	Can anyone remember any Government treating the people of this country—in this case, the people of the north-west and of Yorkshire and the Humber—with such utter contempt and cynicism? It is awesomely ruthless politics suddenly to cut horrendous losses under the cover of a Cabinet reshuffle. This is what new Labour calls "a good day to bury bad news". Talking of reshuffles—

John Prescott: There is no reshuffle.

Bernard Jenkin: None? I wondered whether that was why the right hon. Gentleman did not make the statement himself. I thought today might be his last day on the Front Bench. Are not regional assemblies his life's work? Did he refuse to make the statement because he did not want to trash 20 or more years of commitment to his regional dreams?
	This whole episode shows more clearly than ever that the Government have nothing but contempt for Parliament. Hon. Members may have differing opinions about the merits of elected regional assemblies, but we can all agree on one thing—this is no way to run our constitution, our democracy or our country. How much public money has been wasted in those two regions on consultation, the information campaign and the boundary committee review?How many hours of civil service time has been wasted and how much goodwill from the few members of the business community who supported the Government's proposals has been lost? Pity the poor "yes" campaigners, who were led a merry dance for a year or more only to be defeated before a single vote is cast in the referendums.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman be straight with the House? When he uses the word "postpone", what he really means is cancel, scrap, finish with, delete, forget about, consign to the dustbin of failed ideas, because the truth is that nobody wants an extra layer of professional politicians leeching more tax out of the pockets of honest, hard-working people.
	May I press the Minister on the reason he gives for scrapping only two out of three referendums? Does he not realise how utterly illogical he is being? If an all-postal referendum is unsafe in Yorkshire, how can it be safe in Northumberland? If it is a bad system for Bradford, how can the identical system be okay in Newcastle? If it is prone to corruption in Liverpool, why is it not prone to corruption in Durham or Middlesbrough? If the issue is all-postal voting, why does he not switch to a tried and tested system that we have had running in this country for a couple of hundred years? It is called the polling station and the ballot box.
	The reasons the Minister has given for pulling the referendums are a fig leaf—chaff to disguise the real reason. The fact is that a majority of Labour MPs were in covert or open rebellion in the north-west and Yorkshire this week because they know what Ministers have been denying. They know their voters do not want an extra layer of placemen, politicians and bureaucrats. They do not want a costly and wasteful reorganisation of local government. They do not want powers stripped away from local councils, which represent real communities, and placed in the hands of a remote bureaucracy under politicians with virtually no power at all.
	Where would just one elected regional assembly leave the British constitution? What started out as a so-called grand plan for comprehensive constitutional settlement in England is today left in tatters. First there were eight regions, then there were three, and now there is one.
	As for the Bill, for the Government to announce the draft Bill today just adds to the atmosphere of cynicism. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me an advance copy of his statement, but unfortunately I got the revised copy only after he was on his feet, so I cannot comment on what he means by "the policy statement" that goes with the Bill. It obviously does not have legislative authority. The policy statement will not be included in the Bill.
	If the information published today is so significant, why did the Minister deliberately withhold it from the House yesterday, when we had much better time and occasion to debate it? He is still holding the Bill in the Vote Office. He has still not released it for us to look at. If there are so-called new powers in the Bill, how can that be, when hardly more than a few weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) told us in a letter that the White Paper set out all the powers proposed for the assemblies. The Deputy Prime Minister told a meeting in the north of England earlier this year that he was fighting "battles" with his Cabinet colleagues about the powers he wanted for the Bill. His absence from the Dispatch Box today is clear indication that he has lost all his battles.
	Few in the Government are committed to the Deputy Prime Minister's pathetic pipe dream, because they can see that elected regional assemblies are unwanted and would become unpopular and expensive tax-raising talking shops that would not create one extra teacher in the classroom, one extra nurse or doctor for the NHS, or one extra policeman on our streets.

Nick Raynsford: I listened to what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said and recalled him saying exactly the same thing yesterday. It is nice to know that he is simply recycling old speeches. [Hon. Members: Consistency."] Before we get down to the substance, let me comment on the process.
	I phoned the hon. Gentleman this morning to explain that if the other place approved the order before I made the statement, I would announce the publication of the Bill. That is why the draft statement that he had made provision for us not yet being in that position, but I alerted him to the fact, and I apologise if he got the statement only at the last minute. I hope he will understand that that was for technical reasons—the other place approved the order very recently.
	The Opposition have consistently opposed any regional devolution and have fought throughout the past two years to prevent referendums from being held in any region. They nod to confirm that. It is pretty rich for an Opposition who have consistently opposed that now to oppose the Government, who have decided that it is right to postpone the referendums in two regions. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
	We as a Government made it clear that we listened to the debate and to the views expressed, and we have amended our proposals. It is pretty rich of the Opposition to criticise us for doing something that they have been urging us to do for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's claim that we are withdrawing from our commitment to regional government is entirely wrong. We remain utterly committed to extending the option of regional government. That is why we are publishing the Bill today. That is a clear statement of our commitment to give the people of the English regions the opportunity to decide whether they wish to exercise those powers in the region through an elected regional assembly.
	The Bill shows our commitment. We are not cancelling the referendums in the Yorkshire and Humber and north-west regions. We are simply postponing them, for the very good reason that concerns have been voiced in all parts of the House about all-postal ballots in those two regions. No concerns have been voiced about all-postal ballots in the north-east. On the contrary, we heard last night impressive evidence from speaker after speaker from the north-east about the benefits of all-postal, the extensive experience they have had of all-postal and the effect that that has had on increasing turnout. Listening to the evidence and responding to the views expressed by the House, the Government have changed their position—I accept that entirely, but that is good for democracy. We have listened to the views of hon. Members and acted logically and sensibly on that.
	The people will ultimately decide. The test for the Opposition is this: when the people of the north-east come to exercise their decision on 4 November in the referendum that has been provided for by the orders, will the Opposition accept their decision? Will the Opposition confirm that if the people of the north-east vote yes, they will support an elected regional assembly in the north-east of England?

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for the statement, even though I fear this is a sad day for democracy. The real losers are the voters, not just because they have been denied a choice and denied a ballot, but because they have been denied the chance to take power from Whitehall—to elect a regional assembly instead of suffering regional quangos.
	What is the Minister's message to the yes campaigners, who have worked so hard already to realise greater democracy in our regions? What hope for the future will he give to the people of the north-west and the Yorkshire region, who have argued for decades for devolution? Will he say how long the postponement will last? Will he give a date? Above all, will he tell the House that Ministers are learning some lessons?
	We on the Liberal Benches told the Government that this could happen. From day one we told them it was a mistake to couple devolution with local government reorganisation. From day one we told them that Ministers ought to be giving away more power to regions to win the public support that was needed. So does the Minister have any regrets about the way the Government have approached the matter? Is he proud of the way his Government have handled regional devolution?
	Given the embarrassing U-turn by the Government, will the Minister tell the House more about why the Government were forced to come to this sorry decision today? Rather than hiding behind the Electoral Commission or a few Back Benchers, can the Minister confirm that the decision was taken at the insistence of No. 10 Downing street? Is it not true that it is the Prime Minister who has tried to stall regional devolution from the outset? It is welcome that the draft powers Bill has been published today, but when will the Government allow a debate on it?
	This statement leaves the Deputy Prime Minister not only embarrassed, but severely wounded. By letting the Prime Minister get his way time and again, his own long-held ambitions have been thwarted. Today, the Chancellor has gained a new ally.

Nick Raynsford: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, voters are not being denied the option of devolution. There will be a postponement—I entirely accept that—but I have made it clear that we are committed to giving the people of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber that opportunity.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when we will take the decision. As I made clear in the statement, we will look closely at the Electoral Commission's report, which we expect to be delivered in late August, and, with the Speaker's approval, we will make a statement to the House in September to set out the timetable. It is a postponement, not a cancellation.
	The message to yes campaigners is that this issue is hugely important and must be handled in the most positive and constructive way. We have responded to voices on both sides of the House raising concern about all-postal ballots. In the light of those, we decided to wait until we can consider the Electoral Commission's report before reaching a final decision. However, we remain utterly committed to people having the option of regional devolution.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about more powers. I hope that when he reads the Bill, he will realise that an extensive series of powers will be available to elected regional assemblies, and that progress has been made since the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will make a judgment when he has had a chance to read the Bill.
	On local government reorganisation, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not believe that it is right to have additional tiers of government. We believe that it is right to have unitary local government if there is regional government. In all regions, the experience of the process involving the boundary committee has shown how much more mature local government can be in considering reorganisation than it was during the period under the Conservative Government when the Banham review caused it considerable anxiety and discord.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the basis of the decision. I repeat that the change of timetable has been prompted by consideration of views expressed in this House. The decision was finally taken in Cabinet this morning.

David Curry: It is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who this morning spent his time personally ringing round regional newspaper editors, was unable to make a statement to the House himself. He must feel powerfully let down by Labour MPs and by the Prime Minister. The sudden accession of virtue by which the Minister says that views expressed in this House led to the deferment defies all credibility given that the Government have consistently swept away all hon. Members' demands for them to wait until the Electoral Commission reports.
	Will the Minister give the costs of the information campaign and meetings in the two regions where there has been a postponement, and confirm that they will be verified by the Audit Commission or the National Audit Office? Will he confirm that there will not be a referendum in either of those two regions this side of the general election? Will he further confirm that there will be no local government reorganisation in the absence of elected regional government?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is simply wrong to say that we have not previously shown any concern for views expressed in this House. As he knows very well from our discussion last night, we have listened to his views about the availability of dropping-off points for people in rural areas and have made changes to facilitate that. That is an indication of our genuine desire to listen to and respond to views expressed in the House, as we have in relation to this postponement.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about costs. Against the total budget of £5 million, we have already spent £2.2 million. We intend to spend a further £0.5 million on the "Your Say" campaign in the north-east. Of the £2 million that had been allocated for "Your Say" in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humber, £1.4 million will not be spent, while £600,00 will be transferred to enhanced fire safety publicity to make use of pre-booked television times. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a sensible use of resources. We are responding in the most sensible way.
	On the timetable, we have made it clear that we will report back to the House in September after we have seen the Electoral Commission's report, and then set out our proposals for the new timetable.

Joyce Quin: While I hope that devolution will come to the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber in due course, I believe that the north-east, with its distinct history and culture, and its determination to help to build its own future, will be able to lead the way and to be the pioneer for this new form of government in England. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the case for the north-east is made across government with purpose and enthusiasm?

Nick Raynsford: I echo my right hon. Friend's remarks about the commitment of people in the north-east. I assure her that all those of us who believe, as many of us do passionately, in the case for regional devolution will be doing our utmost to ensure that people in the north-east have full information about the options. I am confident that they will vote yes for regional devolution, which has been a long-term aspiration of the region, and that in doing so they will point the way forward for other parts of the country.

Peter Atkinson: The Minister claimed that there was overwhelming support for a referendum in the north-east. He should pay some regard to opinion polls published in the region showing that the majority of people did not even know that the referendum was to be held.
	If the Electoral Commission reported on 27 August that the whole postal ballot system is flawed, would the Minister postpone the referendum in the north-east?

Nick Raynsford: I understand that the hon. Gentleman will feel like a threatened minority in the north-east, as he is the only Conservative MP in the region. That is an indication of the lack of support that his party, which is opposed to regional devolution, has there. I will say no more about his first point.
	As for what would happen if the Electoral Commission reported at the end of the August that it was unsafe to proceed, we have already said that in that case we would not proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any serious concern in the north-east, which has had more experience of all-postal voting than any other region. A series of pilots have taken place in local authorities, and there were by-elections in 2000, 2002 and 2003. Last night, we heard about a local government by-election that had a 64 per cent. turnout. That all points to the confidence of the north-east region in all-postal voting. On that basis, we think that it is right to proceed, but of course we will look at the Electoral Commission's report when it comes out.

George Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on having the common sense to listen to the voices of Members of Parliament in the north-west and of the public in that region, who, by their eloquent silence, have indicated that they do not recognise that there is any such place as the north-west in terms of politics, economics or culture. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving those of us who believe that city regions are the way forward for devolution the space to develop our arguments, and assure him that that campaign starts now.

Nick Raynsford: It may disappoint my hon. Friend to learn that we are postponing, not cancelling, a referendum in the north-west. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The argument for regional devolution in the north-west will be engaged at a slightly later date than was previously arranged. However, I understand his concerns. As he has not been an advocate of this policy, I am sure that he is pleased about our announcement to postpone.

Graham Brady: I welcome this climbdown from a costly, irrelevant and unwanted proposal for an extra tier of government in the north-west. However, I remain concerned that throughout the process the Government have assumed people's support despite having no evidence for it. If they intend to continue considering the possibility of holding referendums on regional government, can that decision be transferred to an independent body that can make rational decisions without party politics getting in the way and assess the very low level of interest in regional government? That would finally put paid to the whole idea.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman appears not to know that a detailed process, involving soundings, was undergone in all the English regions and it demonstrated greater interest in the northern regions than in others. In comparison with the response to normal consultation exercises, the number of respondents from all three northern regions was significant. However, we have always taken the view that, ultimately, it is up to the people to decide in a referendum. That is why we have provided for referendums. The people will decide on 4 November in the north-east and later in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect their view when they make their decision in those referendums. That is the ultimate test.

Louise Ellman: I am deeply disappointed by my right hon. Friend's statement but will he give the House a guarantee that the people of the north-west will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly? They will thus have the same opportunities as are being given to people in the north-east, about which I am pleased. Does he agree that the problems of the north-south divide and the unaccountability of regional quangos will continue unless resolute action is taken? When he says that he will listen to people's voices on the matter, will he guarantee listening to those who positively seek change to give a better deal to people who live in the north-west and not solely to negative voices inside and outside Parliament and those who simply want to maintain the status quo, with all its inequalities?

Nick Raynsford: Of course, I was here last night when my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the problems of the north-south divide and argued passionately for people in the north-west to have the opportunity to vote for regional devolution. I give her the assurance that she seeks. People in the north-west will have that option. It will not be exercised on 4 November, for the reasons that I have given, but we will report back to the House in September and make the timetable clear then. I assure my hon. Friend that we will listen to the views of all parties. Obviously, we shall listen to the views of those who seek change, as she does.

John Greenway: Has the Minister no comprehension of the damage that uncertainty about the matter does to local government in North Yorkshire? Even if we had a referendum on 4 November, civil servants have already left their posts for better pastures because the plans mean that they cannot envisage a future for their local council. If we are considering only a postponement, not a cancellation, the uncertainty will continue. The Minister owes us an explanation of when he believes that the ballot will take place. If he is genuinely in favour of it, why cannot we have polling stations?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point about uncertainty in local government because of reorganisation. I am conscious of that and I want to ensure that we make a statement in the House in September to clarify the position so that the uncertainty does not continue any longer than absolutely necessary. I accept it has an effect on people who work in local authorities.
	By contrast with the atmosphere in the 1990s when the Banham process engendered considerable delay, concern and apprehension in local government, the current process has generally been much more positive, although I appreciate that some people are apprehensive about the different options in Yorkshire and Humber. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend knows that Durham and other parts of the north-east have had all-postal ballots for the past three years. That has led to dramatic increases in turnout. The Electoral Commission's analysis of the pilots not only congratulated the relevant councils but pointed out that there was no increase in fraud.
	I welcome today's announcement of a referendum on 4 November in the north-east. I look forward to people in the north-east having a say in their future on that day. The Conservative party never gave people such a say when it abolished, for example, Tyne and Wear county council.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the considerable and positive experience of the north-east. Twenty-two all-postal voting pilots took place in the north-east before 2004—significantly more than in any other region even though it is the smallest region in the country. That shows the extent to which the north-east has gone further in piloting and testing all-postal voting. As he said, that arrangement has had a positive impact in increased turnout. Few, if any, recorded instances of fraud occurred in the north-east. All that points to the logic of proceeding in the north-east with an all-postal ballot on 4 November. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome of that and I have no doubt that he will be a powerful advocate for devolution in the region between now and the referendum.

Andrew Stunell: It is a disappointing day for those of us in the north-west who believe that devolution is an important way of regenerating the region. Will the Minister say a little more about the timetable? In responding to other hon. Members, he said that the money set aside for the devolution campaign in the north-west will be spent on something else. That strongly implies that the delay is not a matter of weeks or months but perhaps years. It is important for those of us in the north-west who support devolution and want the campaign to succeed to have a much clearer idea of the Government's commitment and time scale.

Nick Raynsford: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I suspect that his colleague Lord Greaves may not share his view of the north-west. As he will acknowledge, there is disagreement among all parties in the north-west region. One of the factors that we took into account was the different views about all-postal voting—Lord Greaves was diametrically opposed to it in all circumstances. We do not necessarily agree with him, but we have listened.
	On the timetable, I have already made it clear that we will report back to the House in September. There was a programme, which included significant pre-booked advertising slots, for the summer. We have made arrangements to postpone all that could be postponed and to substitute fire safety advertisements for "Your Say" advertisements in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber to make the best use of pre-booked and pre-paid advertising slots. However, there is no question of our not resuming the "Your Say" campaign in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west once we have clarified the timetable for the referendum.

Gordon Prentice: I welcome the statement but I am concerned about the fact that my right hon. Friend continues to talk about postponing the referendums instead of admitting the inevitable and saying that they will be dropped. Let me revert to the point that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made. There is huge uncertainty in local government, with people leaving their jobs and so on. Is not it important, when the Government revert to the timetable in September, to set out the next steps clearly and definitively.

Nick Raynsford: I have already made it clear that that is exactly our intention.

Tim Collins: Does the Minister accept that there will be widespread delight in Cumbria generally and south lakeland in particular at any setback for the unpopular Labour and Liberal Democrat attempts to parachute unwanted extra bureaucracy into rural areas in the north-west? Will he also acknowledge at last that, behind all the flim-flam, the only reason that he has come to the Chamber today to admit that the Government have wasted millions of pounds on a campaign that they have called off at the last minute is that he knows that they would have lost the referendums in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber? If he believes that he has a chance of winning referendums in those areas, why will not he guarantee to hold them before the next election?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman has heard me say repeatedly, although there is a postponement, we remain determined to proceed with referendums in all the regions. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have visited Cumbria and our experience has been different from the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. We encountered many people who perceive genuine advantages in devolution and in local government reorganisation in Cumbria, where several people have understood the logic of the boundary committee proposals. The statement is a sensible response to doubts about all-postal voting, which were expressed especially vehemently in the two regions that we are considering. That is the reason for the postponement but we remain committed to giving people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the rest of the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber the opportunity to benefit from regional devolution.

Tony Lloyd: It would, I am afraid, be hard to disguise my considerable disappointment at this announcement, but I have genuine sympathy for my right hon. Friend's predicament in coming to the House today. The arguments about taking the weight of this over-centralised country off the northern regions remain, as does the need to guarantee that the northern regions will never again be crushed by a south-east-dominated Tory Government, should there ever be another. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that referendums will go ahead, allowing the people of the north-west and of Yorkshire and Humber to exercise their right to decide?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will know from what I have said today and on previous occasions that there is no question of any change in our commitment to giving people in the northern regions—and, indeed, in other regions in England in due course—the opportunity to benefit from devolution. The people of London had that opportunity and they have taken it, against the view of the Conservative party, which opposed it. The people of London voted for it and have benefited from it, and we believe that it is right that people in other English regions should have that opportunity.

Stephen O'Brien: It will come as no surprise to my constituents in Eddisbury or to people in the rest of Cheshire that the breathtaking incompetence of the Government has led to this decision, and they will welcome the opportunity to retain the ability to belong to an area that they love. However, this decision does not remove the genuine blight on the excellent Cheshire county council. The word "excellent" was, of course, ascribed to the council by the Minister's own Department and by this Government. Given that this whole idea originated from this Government—but for whom we would not be wasting all this time discussing the issue—will the Minister now order a compensation scheme for all those private individuals and companies from whom money has been raised for the campaign to defeat this ridiculous proposal?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we have abandoned the referendum. We have not; we are simply postponing it. People will be able to take a decision—yes or no—in due course.

Philip Hammond: When?

Nick Raynsford: I have clarified the fact, in my original statement and in response to a number of questions, that we shall come back to the House in September, and that we shall then make a statement about the timetable.
	On the question of local government reorganisation, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) will be aware that, in Cheshire, there has been a lot of intelligent interest in the benefits of the different options. Those include having either a single, unitary county or three unitary authorities, each representing areas currently covered by two separate districts. Those options obviously have partisan support on either side, but there has been an intelligent and sensible discussion on them. Most people feel that larger, more powerful unitary authorities can play an important role in improving the quality of local government.

Peter Pike: May I assure my right hon. Friend that many people will be glad to hear that this is a deferment and not a cancellation? Many people in the north-west believe that this is an important opportunity to seize control of certain pots of money and of quangos and other bodies that take important decisions in our region. I hope that, when he comes back to the House in September, my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that we shall have the referendum in the north-west before I retire at the next general election.

Nick Raynsford: I certainly intend to bring clarity when we make a further statement in September. I also want my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished career in the north-west, to be able to campaign actively for a yes vote in a referendum before the next general election, but he will have to wait for our statement in September, when I shall give him absolute clarity about the timetable.

Ann Winterton: There will be joy in the county of Cheshire and the boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield at this eleventh-hour conversion—this U-turn—on the part of the Government, which has been made for obvious political reasons. The Minister keeps insisting that this is merely a postponement. May I respectfully suggest that he should pull the rug from under this stupid proposal and, after a decent interval, come to the House and announce that the idea of regionalisation in the north-west is dead and buried?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady clearly wishes there to be rejoicing in the north-west. I am surprised that she is not hoping that that will be about her reselection as the Conservative candidate for her constituency. As I have said, we will report back to the House in September, and we will set out the timetable, but I want to make it clear that we believe that there is an overwhelming case for giving people in all the regions of England the opportunity to have democratic control—if they want it—over functions that are currently discharged by bureaucrats who are not democratically accountable, many of whose institutions were set up by the Conservatives. I am surprised that the hon. Lady advocates the defence of the quango state; I do not think that many other people in her constituency will share her views.

Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about Yorkshire and Humber. I accept that it was not an easy announcement to make but, in the circumstances, it was the right one. Sadly, at this stage there is no great enthusiasm in my constituency for a directly elected regional assembly. If my right hon. Friend is putting the issue on the back burner, will he leave it on a low light for the time being? We do not want the prospect of a referendum hanging over us for up to 12 months. If the delay is to be for at least a year, we can look at the proposals for a regional assembly and, I hope, build up more support for them.

Nick Raynsford: In September, we will set out our proposals for the timetable. It would be premature for me to indicate what our thinking on that is at this stage.

Nigel Evans: Did the Minister know yesterday afternoon that this issue was going to be discussed in Cabinet today and that he was likely to have to make this U-turn? None of this makes any sense. Has some polling been done in the north-west and Yorkshire, where the Government know that there is little likelihood of their winning a referendum? They think that they have a chance in the north-east, so perhaps they are going to try one of those bouncing exercises, like the one that they tried in Wales, where the referendum was held a week later than the one in Scotland. The fact is that the people of Ribble Valley do not want this assembly, and the people of the north-west do not want it. It is about time the Government junked this dreadful idea completely.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has consistently backed the losing side in referendums—his party was wrong about Scotland, Wales and London—and I would not take his judgment as the right basis on which to move forward. It is sad and surprising that he takes that view, rather than recognising that it is appropriate for Governments to listen to the views expressed in the House and, in certain circumstances, to change their view. We have done that, and I would have thought that most sensible Members would regard it as a sign of intelligent government, in contrast to the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has put on it.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Finance Act 2004
	Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004
	Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004
	Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004
	Patents Act 2004
	Health Protection Agency Act 2004
	Traffic Management Act 2004
	Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants,   etc.) Act 2004
	Energy Act 2004
	Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, in business questions, I asked for an oral statement about the ombudsman's request to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in relation to Equitable Life. A written ministerial statement has now appeared in the Library, which says that the Cabinet Office Minister will extend the jurisdiction to include the Government Actuary's Department. However, it does not say when the necessary order will be laid. This is a matter of great urgency that affects hundreds of thousands of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Have you had any indication that the Minister will be giving further information to the House today about when that order is to be laid, so that there will be no further delay in this regard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, but he has raised it in the House today and put it clearly on the record. No doubt the people responsible for these matters will respond to it.

Summer Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Tom Cox: I wish to refer to the issues covered in early-day motion 1466, on the fire service national procurement strategy, which has been signed by 63 Members from all political parties in the House and which, in my view, cannot be regarded as a political issue. It is causing deep concern among highly respected companies that manufacture safety equipment for fire services in this country and for export. More than 200 UK companies are involved in the industry, which employs many thousands of people.
	Deep concern centres—

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), but I have not noticed the clock moving. Normally, when there is a 10-minute rule, the clock shows the time running down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman most sincerely for drawing that matter to the attention of the Chair and the House—clearly, the end of term is creeping in. That matter will be corrected—immediately. [Laughter.]

Tom Cox: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	There is deep concern about the block on major procurement that the Government have imposed. This has gone on for more than nine months, and despite repeated requests to meet Ministers to discuss Government policy on the purchase of equipment, regrettably, no such meeting has taken place. As a result of this lack of consultation and involvement, business has been lost in this country and abroad, and deep concern has been expressed about the future of the industry.
	I understand that there could be a new national procurement strategy, under which, I suspect, there could be advantages. However, no Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has met representatives of the Federation of British Fire Organisations to discuss the issue. That has not been for the want of trying to arrange such a meeting. In April, the all-party fire safety group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and of which I and many other Members are members, organised a seminar in the House to discuss the concerns that exist. Sadly, no Minister attended the seminar, and neither did any senior civil servant attend who could have informed the Minister of the deep concerns that existed then and that still exist. We have a right to ask why that has been allowed to happen. The Government set up two forums last year to consult those who work in fire safety. Neither of the groups was asked to consider the issue of procurement strategy, and nor has anyone involved in the manufacturing of safety equipment been involved, or had their view sought.
	I have referred not only to the home market but to the export market, which is suffering because of this uncertainty. We all know, however, that there has been a joint CBI-TUC productivity group, which has clearly said that the export capabilities of companies should be taken into account when placing tenders for public spending work. We welcome that. We cannot, however, allow this lack of real involvement and consultation by the Government to continue, for the reasons that I have given. There is a very real need for consultation to take place as soon as possible.
	Some very well known people in the fire safety industry are highly respected and trusted to listen to concerns and clearly to express them at the highest level—to Ministers. I refer to two people in particular: Mrs. Pamela Castle, and chief fire officer Alan Doig. They are knowledgeable and command great confidence within the industry. They could start to rebuild the trust and confidence of all who are involved in the industry.
	I accept that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who will reply to the debate, cannot fully answer the points that I have made, but I am sure that he fully understands the importance and the urgency of this matter. Therefore, I request that tomorrow he clearly informs the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of my remarks and requests that an urgent meeting be arranged. The fire safety industry would welcome that and, as I have clearly stated, both Mrs. Pamela Castle and chief fire officer lan Doig should be fully involved in discussions. I ask my hon. Friend to assure me when he winds up that my views will be conveyed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow.

David Atkinson: Earlier this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I failed to catch your eye to speak in an Opposition day debate on post office closures. If I had done so, I would have drawn attention to the failure of the Post Office to appreciate the impact on frail, elderly constituents of the removal of their local post office, which for them has always been a vital lifeline, especially where there are no banks or cash points nearby. I would have described the consultation period as inadequate, the consultation process as shambolic and my intervention on behalf of my constituents as treated with disdain.
	I applaud the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services for telling the House that in hindsight the Post Office did not handle the closures with sufficient sensitivity. Unfortunately, the changes that he announced in the consultation procedure will not reopen post offices in my constituency, which have, in my view, been wrongly closed.
	Today, I fear that British Telecom might be emulating the Post Office with its plans to remove public pay phones throughout the country. In April, BT wrote to tell me that it proposed to remove 162 telephone boxes out of a total of 949 in my county of Dorset, including 21 in my constituency of Bournemouth, East. I assume that many Members have received similar letters relating to their areas. The proposal to remove two specific boxes in my constituency alarms me particularly, as they serve two distinct communities: Holdenhurst village and Wick village, both of which are conservation areas and located beside the River Stour, one upstream, beside which fishing and walking are popular, and the other where boating is an all-year-round activity.
	In response to my question in the House about what consultation BT is obliged to undertake before it removes public telephone boxes, the Minister referred me to the industry regulator, Ofcom. Its chief executive wrote to inform me that the local planning authority must be notified, and that notices must be prominently displayed in the boxes concerned, telling users that they have 42 days to make representations to the authority. I wrote to Bournemouth borough council, the planning authority, with my objections, and it appears that mine has been the only letter received. That is not altogether surprising, as when I asked residents in Holdenhurst village whether they knew that their only telephone box was under threat, they said that they did not and would certainly have objected if they had known.
	I am informed that a number of senior members of Bournemouth council were consulted by officers in response to BT's notification, and that disappointment and concern at the impact that the loss of 42 payphones would have both from a social and safety point of view was expressed to BT. However, there has been no report to elected members and no debate in the council on the proposed removals. Indeed, I doubt very much whether most of our local councillors know that telephone boxes are to be removed from the wards that they represent. I am not encouraged by the reported comments of the cabinet member responsible for community relations, Councillor Andrew Garratt:
	"we have not been asked to consult or inform local people . . . and have no obligation to do so."
	Nor am I encouraged by the reported comments of the leader of neighbouring Poole council, Councillor Brian Leverett:
	"we are not involved in any consultation . . . however we, as a local authority, would like to be consulted."
	I appreciate that the mobile phone revolution has led to far fewer people using public payphones and that BT cannot indefinitely maintain those that are becoming increasingly unprofitable. Nevertheless, there remain some people, including me, who do not have mobile telephones and rely on finding a public telephone—often, regrettably, in an emergency. BT is a universal public service provider designated as such by Ofcom just one year ago. From the two examples of the proposed removals that I have given—Holdenhurst village and Wick village in my constituency, and there may be many more of equal gravity—it seems to me that BT is abandoning its social responsibilities as a provider. It is also clear to me that the local authority has not given proper consideration to such proposals, which should be required by Ofcom, and may even be expected by Ofcom.
	I do not know whether Ofcom monitors the consultation that BT undertakes and I am waiting for a reply to find out. In my view, consultation with senior councillors by officers is not enough. Every councillor should have been informed and given the opportunity to respond on behalf of the local residents whom they are elected to represent. It seems to me that that has not happened, so the consultation that BT is obliged to undertake is not being fulfilled in Bournemouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) fully supports my concerns.
	I look forward to the response of the deputy Leader of the House and any assurance that he can give that BT will not be allowed to remove any public telephone boxes that serve distinct local communities or areas that attract visitors until such proposals have been given proper consideration by the entire local authority.
	In conclusion, I believe that all of us here have been badly let down by the Post Office, a public service provider, closing branches without consultation. I do not want the same experience with BT's removal of vital public telephone boxes. The Government should not ignore what is happening, because it is with them that the buck should stop.

Liam Byrne: It gives me great pleasure to rise to make my maiden speech and to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I welcomed his comments about the challenges of the mobile phone industry—a subject about which I have learned much in the past week. I am especially grateful to be given this opportunity to speak only 48 hours after being presented to the House. I hope that hon. Members will not see this as unseemly haste, but my constituents, like most people in Birmingham, like to get down to business, and they will appreciate that I have been given the opportunity to do the same.
	I am grateful to have some conventions to honour this afternoon. They are conventions with a good cause. I can think of no better place to start my contribution to the House than with a celebration of the achievements of my predecessor and a celebration of my constituency.
	Hodge Hill has been served well by Terry Davis, the now right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and Roy Jenkins over the past 50 years. They are all people who have served not only their constituency but their country with distinction. But it was the achievements of Terry Davis over the past 25 years that we celebrated at the Birmingham Council house this weekend past. To those who knew Terry and worked with him it came as no surprise to learn that the representatives of 45 countries had asked him to become their leader of the Council of Europe for the next five years. It is truly the crown of a career, as Lord Tweedsmuir once put it.
	We were not surprised, because those of us who know Terry know him for his compassion, his principle and his iron-cast determination to get things done. Once upon a time, Terry Davis was the man who was known as one of the very few people in Birmingham who could get the window of a council house fixed. Over the past two and a half decades, Terry Davis went on to serve 17,000 families in Birmingham, Hodge Hill and before it Stechford—two for every day that he served in office. I am very proud to say that he is now not just helping the families of a constituency but helping the families of an entire continent. I know that he will serve them with the credo that he expressed in 1979 in a letter that he wrote to constituents in Stechford. He said:
	"We cannot judge people by the colour of their skin. Race hatred does nothing to keep prices down, increase wages, provide more jobs or improve our living conditions. It sets worker against worker and it sets neighbour against neighbour."
	They are words that have inspired many on this side of the House and words that inspired me during my campaign to win the confidence of the people of Hodge Hill over the past three or four weeks.
	Just as Terry Davis epitomised what is great about British political life, so the constituency epitomises so much about what is great in Britain. That is exactly why it is the sort of place that any party with aspirations to govern must win. Over the past three weeks, many hon. Friends were able to join me walking, and sometimes running, up and down the streets and roads of the constituency. Many were able to join me in the west of Hodge Hill on the busy Alum Rock road and Washwood Heath road bustling with vibrancy, commerce and trade. Many people joined me on the streets of Saltley. Many people joined me outside Ward End park. Many people joined me at the great LDV plant—a symbol of Birmingham's enduring excellence and of our enterprise in manufacturing.
	Many hon. Friends were able to join me on the walk eastwards towards Hodge Hill and Stechford—towards the Fox and Goose, where many people were able to join me for lunch in the Beaufort Diner. A few others were able to join me for a drink in the Beaufort Sports and Social Club. I was proud to tell them about the historic tradition of the northern border of Hodge Hill, along which once stood the factories that produced the Spitfires and Hurricanes that defended these islands in one of its most dangerous hours, and which today power our exports with companies such as Jaguar.
	Many hon. Friends joined me in Shard End and Tile Cross south of the River Cole and in Kitts Green, visiting great hubs of community life such as Shard End community centre and the Royal British Legion, where we were able for a while at least to put politics aside and talk among friends.
	More important than the places that we visited together were the people whom we met together—great community servants such as Marj Bridle, Margaret Greenaway, Ian Ward and Margaret Byrne in Hodge Hill; Mike Nangle, the first Irish-born Lord Mayor of Birmingham city; Anita Ward and John Clancy in Hodge Hill; Ansa Ali Khan and Mohammed Idress in Washwood Heath. Together we met spiritual leaders such as Tasawar ul-Haq, Susdar Hussain and Qari Mohammed Shoid. Together we met great public servants—people who were serving the people of Hodge Hill day in and day out. They included men such as Lee Richards, the force behind the Sure Start project which is making a difference to so many young families in Hodge Hill; and women such as Anne Cole, the power behind Saltley school, our first specialist school focused on science. These are the people I now wish to work with, with a new resolve and a new partnership to fight crime and antisocial behaviour and to bring a new prosperity and pride to Birmingham, Hodge Hill. That is why I have welcomed so much the statements made by my right hon. Friends to this House over the past few days and weeks, especially the statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The plans that he announced will make a real difference to the lives of people in Birmingham, Hodge Hill. The new resources—£50 million announced for police community safety wardens—will make crime fighting that much easier on the streets of Hodge Hill. New strategies to support witnesses will mean that we will convict those whom we catch. New plans to put the sense back into sentencing will mean that those who do wrong will be punished.
	There are of course great challenges in Hodge Hill. There are great concerns about teenage gangs who make life a misery for others. Too few people in Hodge Hill have the qualifications that they deserve. Half are without qualifications—one of the highest proportions in the country. Fewer than one in 10 have the chance to go on to higher education, one of the lowest proportions in the country. Some 42 per cent. of our children are entitled to free school meals.
	However, the image that one takes away from the by-election campaign in Hodge Hill is not one of challenge; it is one of promise. Like many places in Britain, Hodge Hill faces a future that is brighter than it has ever been, because the people there have never been better educated, better resourced, better equipped or better connected with the best ideas in the world wherever they might be. But that promise will not be unlocked if left only to the tender mercies of the marketplace. To unlock the promise in Birmingham, Hodge Hill will take a Government determined to work hard with the resources that we have agreed to share, and it will take people, public servants and politicians who are determined to pull together to make a difference in the best traditions of the city of Birmingham.
	People have asked me about my priorities in Hodge Hill. My priorities are simple—to crack down on crime and to bring new jobs. In other words, I want to help to deliver in Hodge Hill a prosperous place, with streets that we are proud of and neighbourhoods that live in peace, not in fear. I will also redouble my determination to fight the prejudice that prevents so many people in my constituency from contributing to the progress of this country.
	As I begin work, it is with two images in mind. The first is of a young mother and her child, whom I met on the second day of the campaign in a Sure Start facility. The mother was enjoying the new services and resources that have made a difference to her life and that of her child. The second image is of another mother, at a Shard End residents' meeting, who talked about the fear in which she lived and her sense that when she called for help, nobody came. So as I start work it is with the knowledge that we have made great strides in the past seven years, but that a great deal of work lies ahead. I am delighted to conclude my first contribution to the work of this House with that third image—of progress made, but great work ahead.

Alistair Burt: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He paid warm tribute to his predecessors in the seat, and Conservative Members are especially grateful that he remarked on the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), the former Member of Parliament for Stechford. The hon. Gentleman also paid warm tribute to Terry Davis, which is also echoed on these Benches. We wish Terry well with his new duties: he was a well liked and assiduous Member of Parliament.
	The hon. Gentleman gave a measured and thoughtful speech. I am delighted to be associated so closely with a by-election victor—it does not happen to me very often. If he would see me privately afterwards to pass on some tips, I should be very grateful. The hon. Gentleman spoke warmly of those with whom he had so recently been on the streets and whom he will endeavour to serve. The images he painted of his constituency and the evident sincerity with which he spoke of his forthcoming work on his constituents' behalf will serve him well. He comes here with the reputation of being fearsomely bright and hard-working. He will, of course, live that down sooner or later and be accepted among his colleagues as a valued Member. [Laughter.] His contribution showed plainly that he was a worthy victor in the by-election and the whole House will look forward to many contributions in the same vein from him.
	The quiet people of North-East Bedfordshire are well into their summer. The carnivals of Sandy and Biggleswade are now over and the villages have had their local fetes and church fairs. Summer is in full swing, but there are stirrings beneath the surface of community tranquillity. Constituents have asked me to raise a number of issues in the House before the summer Adjournment.
	First, I wish to convey my constituents' continuing mystification at the absence of the report on the fire and disturbances at Yarl's Wood in February 2002, some two and a half years ago. The House will recall the loss of half the centre, £100 million cost to the taxpayer and, more importantly, the threat to the lives of those detained and working there, not to mention those of the brave public service workers who went to help. I have repeatedly requested the publication of that report and the need for it was thrown into sharper focus this week by the disturbances at Harmondsworth. The report on Yarl's Wood might well contain information about the way in which detainees are held and brought to centres, and about picking up trouble spots at an early stage and noticing increases in tension. All that might have been helpful in the Harmondsworth situation. If it really was a priority for the Home Office, we would have had the report by now. I should be grateful if the Minister would convey my remarks to the Home Secretary and, at the same time, ask whether a pilot programme for tagging asylum seekers and detainees will be introduced at the end of the summer. If so, what effect will it have on Yarl's Wood in my constituency?
	Apart from that specific matter, what has grated most on the minds of my constituents—and what they have asked me to raise—is their frustration at being thwarted by various barriers that are put in their way when they try to achieve something, either in their voluntary efforts or their business life. I do not usually bang on about the burden of red tape and regulation because that can get a bit routine, but I have had cases brought to me in the past few months that exemplify the frustrations of people in so many different walks of life. I offer them to the Minister and to the House as an expression of concern and with the sense that we must be able to do something to make life easier for people who are simply trying to get on.
	Two schools have approached me in connection with the New Opportunities Fund for PE and Sport, because they have sought to finance new sports halls. Sharnbrook upper school is a successful school that covers a rural area in the north of my constituency. It is the former school of Paula Radcliffe, so it knows a bit about sports. It made an application to NOF for PE and Sport, which was set up in November 2001 under the national lottery, with a budget of £581 million. By mid-2002, Sharnbrook had completed the county assessment process and begun to work on its application to NOF. By March 2003, the school had made its first submission.
	It is now July 2004. No money has appeared. The head, Peter Barnard, has spent nearly £30,000, used reams of paper, answered requests and resubmitted information. He has seen his original budget for the application wiped out by the time it has taken, and still no money has appeared. He wrote to Sport England on 23 June:
	"NOF has promised £225,000. However their massive and quite unbelievable bureaucracy has been a source of constant delay, severely endangering the school's cash-flow. None of the promised money has reached us from this source . . . I estimate that the NOF bid process has cost the school £30,000 in administration and the NOF contribution, although welcome, falls very short of what is required. Their failure to deliver promised funding on time means that I have a cash flow problem and have had to cut back funds within the school."
	The head of Lincroft middle school originally raised the issue with me and I tabled some written questions on his behalf. As I have said, the NOF for PE and Sport was launched in November 2001 with a budget of £581 million. By April this year, its actual expenditure was £10 million. No wonder local schools are frustrated by a process with such an outcome.
	I have two further examples. On Saturday morning I visited the multiple sclerosis centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), which also serves my constituents. I spoke to Val Woods, who has run the centre successfully for 20 years—until the National Care Standards Commission decided that it needed to be licensed and registered. She has spent the past two years going through that process. Several issues have emerged. The centre used to treat children in its hydrobaric therapy facility. New rules require that even those volunteers who operate the machinery and have no contact with children must go through two-day child protection training courses. They are not willing to do that, because they see no point in it. A paediatric nurse must be on hand, which is an extra cost that the centre never had to meet before.
	When Val Woods was talking to a commissioner one day, she was asked, "What is your complaints procedure like?" She described it. The commissioner then asked, "What is your procedure when the loo rolls run out?" She said, "I'm sorry . . . " The questioner repeated, "What is your procedure when the loo rolls run out? You must have a procedure for that." She burst out laughing. She could not understand why, after 20 years of successfully running the centre, her standards and her licence depended on whether she had a written protocol for dealing with the absence of loo rolls. That is the sort of thing that frustrates people. That centre can continue to look after children because it has resources, but smaller centres throughout the country cannot carry on.
	Mo Catlin runs a successful and popular garden centre in Milton Ernest in my constituency. She set up the business herself, it is not an empire, and she runs it very well. However, she has recently been plagued by a series of requests for information from the Office for National Statistics. For example, under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, Mo has been asked to supply her stock levels month by month, but a stock-take, done properly, takes two days. She must comply or she is subject to a criminal liability.
	Mo has been asked to take part in a monthly wage and salary survey. Why is that information not taken from her annual accounts? There is an annual business inquiry, which asks for the value of certain elements of her stock, including gloves—curiously, not gardening gloves. She has also been asked to take part in a new earnings inquiry relating to a named individual, picked by the Government. She is being asked confidential questions about that person, but has anyone spoken to him? Why must she do all those things? In addition, there is VAT, health and safety, auditing and everything else.
	I produced those examples not because this is a familiar subject of rant for me, as I said earlier, but genuinely because constituents have expressed those frustrations to me. They ask, "Can you not make life easier?" They are trying to run schools or businesses. They are volunteers, trying to help people with multiple sclerosis. Barriers are being put in their way. Somewhere, somehow, somebody must make life easier for those people. It is our responsibility to try to do that.

Siobhain McDonagh: As we go into recess, I draw the House's attention to the fact that people in my constituency are being consulted on the possible closure of the accident and emergency unit and the consultant-led maternity unit at St. Helier hospital—all in the name of bringing people more local services. However, the real driver for that possible change is the power of the royal colleges to determine training places and curriculums and the working hours of junior doctors. I am concerned that health inequality and health needs are not paramount in considering the location of those units.
	There is no hospital in my constituency; half my constituents use St. Helier, the other half use St. George's hospital, yet no one from my constituency serves on the board of either hospital, or on the boards of the primary trust and the strategic health authority. Where is the input from my constituents? Apart from getting involved in whatever consultation process the health service decides to undertake, how can they voice their concerns about the possible closure of those facilities?
	I am concerned that the consultation process will involve only the motivated and will not reach the people who may need the services most. Will the Government take on board the need for health inequality and health need to be paramount in any consultation on changes in the provision of health facilities?
	In my patch, we have the lowest level of general health: 25 per cent. more people do not enjoy good health and the highest number of people report long-term limiting illness. We have the highest number of children aged nought to nine; the highest population in the age bands 20–34 and 35–39, and thus the highest demand for a maternity unit; the largest number of teenage births and the largest number of mums who smoke. We have the largest number of black and ethnic minorities and of people with the least access to primary care services. We have the poorest socio-economic profile; the residents of St. Helier ward are half as likely to be in the professional classes as those in Epsom.
	People in the area surrounding St. Helier hospital are 50 per cent. more likely to be on benefits and almost twice as likely to have no car. More than 2,200 people living in each postcode area surrounding the hospital attended the accident and emergency department. In some of those areas, the number was more than 5,000. The number of people attending A and E from each postcode area around Epsom hospital is never more than 2,200 people, even though the geographical area is greater than that covered by St. Helier.
	We are concerned that those facts are not given the priority they need. We are also concerned that the possible closure of the A and E unit at St. Helier will be disastrous for St. George's in Tooting. Anyone with an interest in health care provision in south London and who read the star ratings published recently will see that St. George's is a two-star trust, prevented from gaining three stars because it could not meet its A and E waiting time targets. If the people in the five council wards currently served by St. Helier A and E could no longer use that facility the pressure on St. George's would be so great that it, too, would have to close through force of numbers.
	My plea is that we should consider where health needs are. There is a feeling outside this place that when changes to health services are being considered more gets more; that, in general, those who live in areas where there are more articulate and wealthier people get the health services. In the consultation process in my constituency, I hope that the needs of people who need their hospital are considered first.

George Young: I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will understand if I do not follow her on the local issues that she raised. However, I want to pick up a point that she made about star ratings and hospitals.
	The House should address three issues before we rise for the summer recess, all of which have an impact on my constituency; they concern the Learning and Skills Council, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, following the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday.
	I start with the Department of Health. Yesterday, as the hon. Lady said, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection published its NHS performance ratings for 2003–04, allocating three, two, one or no stars to all the trusts. I have no difficulty in principle with monitoring the performance of trusts, but is the methodology robust enough to withstand the weight that is now imputed to it?
	One of the acute trusts in my constituency is Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust, which last year had a three-star rating but, yesterday, had dropped to one star—after the Department had encouraged it to apply for foundation status. My subjective judgment is that the hospital is probably better today than it was a year ago—not least because it has a new diagnostic treatment centre. However, during the reference period, while the hospital was being assessed, it underachieved on total times in A and E—like the hospital referred to by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—and so it was knocked back. I hope the Minister will confirm that the star rating regime is itself under review, as I am not sure how many stars I would give it at the moment.
	On a related point, I should not be doing justice to my constituents if I did not mention the continuing difficulty of trying to find an NHS dentist in North-West Hampshire. Yesterday my constituent, Mr C, a 76-year-old pensioner in Tadley, sent me a copy of a letter he had sent to the Secretary of State, which ended, fraternally:
	"And I have voted Labour for years".
	However, to judge by the rest of the letter, he may not be doing so again. Along with many other constituents who had access to an NHS dentist for all the years when we were told that the service was underfunded by the Conservatives, he has been told that his dentist is leaving the NHS. There are real unresolved problems about access to NHS dentists in Hampshire, and despite all the protestations, the position is worse than when the Government took office seven years ago.
	My constituent, Mr. T, needs some complicated civil engineering work done on his gums, which involves negotiations with the NHS. I shall quote from the postscript of his letter to me:
	"Got a call this morning, 19th, from the Royal Berks confirming that it is at least a four month wait for the initial chat with the consultant then at least a five month wait before the start of any treatment. What a state this bloody country is in!"
	That was a less than fraternal ending to the letter, but a reminder to Ministers in the Department of Health that they should be cautious in their boasts about the achievements of the NHS in Hampshire, because real difficulties confront trusts: they are running at a deficit and are having to reconfigure services; and the funding formula does not really do justice to the pressures on the service.
	Turning briefly to the Learning and Skills Council, Andover, with a population of about 40,000, is the main town in my constituency. It has no cinemas, but it has one theatre located in Cricklade college, which comes under the umbrella of the Learning and Skills Council. For the last 28 years, that 270-seat theatre has been the primary venue for all dramatic, operatic and artistic societies in the area—the Andover Music Club, the Andover Operatic Society and a host of other organisations hold their functions there. I have a soft spot for the place, because the final selection for the Conservative candidate in 1995 took place there, when I spent an anxious half an hour in a dressing room with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
	It is just as well that my party is not choosing another candidate, because a press release from Cricklade college asserts that the Learning and Skills Council will no longer allow Cricklade college theatre to be used as a community theatre. When the current refurbishment work is completed, it cannot reopen as a community theatre and can be used only by students. All the organisations that have booked events for later in the year are desperately trying to find other venues, none of which is as suitable as Cricklade theatre. That is patently absurd.
	We need a breathing space to sort out the bureaucratic muddle. I am sure that the Government's policy is that schools and colleges should be outward looking and encourage the community to come in and that they should not be introverted, limited institutions. I hope that the Minister will draw my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and invite him to open a dialogue with the Learning and Skills Council to see whether they can find a way to allow Cricklade college theatre to continue to be used for the purposes for which it has always been used—I know that Test Valley borough council would participate enthusiastically in such a dialogue.
	Finally, I turn to the Ministry of Defence. The Minister will understand that hon. Members up and down the country are anxious on behalf of their constituents about the impact of yesterday's statement. Today is not the time to debate whether that statement got the balance right between this country's obligations and the resources available to meet them. I want to touch on one aspect of the statement only, again with a local focus.
	The Defence Logistics Organisations is one of the largest parts of the MOD, and it employs some 28,000 staff and has a budget of £8 billion. It has successfully supported a range of military challenges over recent years, and many of its staff work in the DLO in Andover. Those staff are, of course, concerned about the proposals to cut nearly 3,000 DLO posts and to move some of the jobs from Andover to Abbey Wood in Bristol. We know from the White Paper that
	"unfortunately some will need to be made redundant".
	It might well be the right strategic decision to refocus resources towards the front line—I have been offered a meeting with the chief of defence logistics, which I shall attend—but the staff do not want uncertainty. Will the Minister pass on to the Secretary of State for Defence my heartfelt plea that the uncertainty should be ended as soon as possible and that those who must go should be given all help in finding a new career?
	Finally, will the Minister confirm that we can return to the broader issues raised by the White Paper when we return in September, with a full-day debate in Government time?

Mark Tami: May I say what a pleasure it is to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr.   Byrne), who made an excellent maiden speech today? I had the pleasure of spending some time in Hodge Hill, and, if nothing else, the knowledge that I gained qualifies me to become a taxi driver in Shard End.
	Further proposals to combat antisocial behaviour in our society were announced this week, and those changes are welcome. This week, we digested the proposals, asked a few questions and moved on to other things, but people who live with antisocial behaviour day in, day out have no such luxury. Their lives and the lives of their family and friends are blighted by the actions of a few uncaring individuals or gangs, who see it as their role in life to wreak havoc and make the lives of law-abiding citizens a misery.
	Antisocial behaviour is a term that we use to cover a whole range of crimes, from drug-related activities to graffiti, drinking on the streets, vandalism, noise and verbal and physical abuse—the list is endless. Some people call it low-level crime, and it may be considered as such on a national basis, but people who experience it certainly do not think so. Furthermore, antisocial behaviour is not a one-off crime; it is an ongoing crime—a series of events and actions. Even when the individuals concerned are not being antisocial, the people who live around them always fear that those individuals' criminal activity will reoccur at any time.
	The proposals announced this week are another step on the road to fighting antisocial behaviour, but we as legislators can only provide the rules and the finance to enable the police, local authorities and community-based groups to tackle the problem—in the past, some have been more willing than others to pick up the tools to do the job. The use of antisocial behaviour orders has varied dramatically across the country, but I contend that where they have been used, they have had a great impact. No one argues that ASBOs are a magic solution, but they are a way in which to influence and change the behaviour of some of the worst offenders.
	ASBOs have been used on a large scale in Greater Manchester to combat some of the worst antisocial behaviour. To date, nearly 400 ASBOs have been issued in Greater Manchester, which is considerably more than anywhere else in the country. Issuing ASBOs is one thing, but are they having the desired effect? Well, if Greater Manchester is anything to go by, the signals are quite positive—it is claimed that 65 per cent. of ASBOs are not breached, which is a considerable achievement. However, ASBOs must be part of an overall programme to change people's behaviour and, importantly, keep that behaviour changed and keep people on the straight and narrow.
	In my experience, and I am sure many hon. Members' experience, fighting antisocial behaviour is a priority for many in our communities. My county council, Flintshire, received more than 1,200 complaints relating to antisocial behaviour last year, and this year's figure could be 1,500. Flintshire county council issued more than 25 per cent. of all acceptable behaviour contracts in Wales in 2003, which is far more than any other local authority. Flintshire set up its antisocial behaviour unit four years ago primarily to enforce tenancy agreements, and individual housing officers, who deal with the lower level instances of antisocial behaviour, support it.
	Neighbourhood watch, the police and the local authority have formed the joint action group partnership, members of which meet each month to examine complaints and take specific action, whether it is on vandalism affecting a school or neighbours from hell.
	In September—this is long overdue—neighbourhood wardens will be introduced for the first time, and they will come under the banner of the antisocial behaviour unit. Those are all positive ways in which Flintshire is tackling antisocial behaviour, but one can only do so much with the resources at one's disposal, and local authorities need more resources if they are to carry out that vital work.
	Victims of antisocial behaviour often feel that no one cares or that those who do care cannot do much. Filling out nuisance sheets and reporting every incident to the police is clearly important, but people only feel that there is a purpose in doing so if something comes of it in the end. How many times have hon. Members heard people tell us that they have done all that has been asked of them, but the council or the police seem powerless to act?
	When one rents a property, whether private or social housing, one agrees to abide by a tenancy agreement. If one breaches that agreement by acts of antisocial behaviour, one should lose the right to remain in that property—it is as simple as that. None of us wants to see people turfed out of their homes, but as citizens we have responsibilities as well as rights, and it is clear that a number of individuals in our society are not prepared to act in a responsible manner. Many people will no doubt argue that removing people from housing is not the answer, because all we are doing is moving the problem from one area to another. Indeed, I am sure that all councils are faced with the dilemma of what to do with the most difficult tenants in our society.
	I agree that we must do everything we can to change people's behaviour, but a hardcore few will not change, and we must examine alternative strategies to deal with them. Why should the people who live in a perfectly happy street or community have their lives turned upside down by antisocial individuals being moved into their area? I would not like it, and no one should have to put up with it. However, on quite a few occasions, I have been able to predict the outcome of certain individuals being moved into certain areas. Everyone deserves a second chance, but some of those people had had a second, a third, a fourth and many more chances, but they still continue to behave in a way that destroys the communities around them. For that minority, we need a new approach. We cannot continue to place them into the community, knowing that they will carry on with their behaviour as before.
	For people who fail to change their behaviour, we need to consider more secure sites and units where behaviour can be monitored more effectively and, I hope, changed in the longer term. The Dundee project, although expensive, has delivered some positive results. Although to some that may sound draconian, in the very few extreme cases, it may be the only answer. For the majority, however, with the right resources for policing and support services, I am sure that we can make progress. It is no coincidence that communities with the lowest aspirations suffer the greatest level of antisocial behaviour.
	In Wales, with the support of the Welsh Assembly, the "communities first" programme is making a difference in helping to regenerate deprived areas. In Higher Shotton, Lesley Hughes, the "communities first" co-ordinator, is helping to build spirit in the community and to assist people to gain the skills and support that they need to build their lives. However, we need to tackle another problem: the availability of affordable, social housing. In Flintshire, 8,000 people are currently on the waiting list for accommodation. At every surgery that I hold, I see people who are desperate to get a place of their own.
	I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement in the spending review that the Treasury has set a target of an additional 10,000 affordable homes, with an extra £430 million channelled into low-cost homes, but we need to do more not only in building new social housing, but in investing in the housing stock that councils currently own. To achieve that, we need to give more financial freedom to councils to enable them to invest the money that is so desperately needed.
	This year, Flintshire expects to pay more than £1 million in dealing with our homeless problem. In Britain, more than 100,000 families are registered as homeless. In many areas, including my own, registering as homeless is seen as one of the only ways to get a property, at least in the short term. The problem of homelessness will continue to grow, despite the increasing wealth of our economy and society, unless we are prepared to address the need for more affordable housing.
	It is no good builders just wanting to build yet another development of five-bedroomed luxury homes with double garages if the majority cannot even think about paying the prices that are being asked for those properties. We need a balance and at the moment—particularly in areas of high economic growth, such as my constituency—that balance is not there. We need to build communities where people want to live and, importantly, can afford to live. Above all, we need to ensure that, wherever we live, we are free from the fear of the tiny minority who fail to take a responsible attitude to life.

Paul Tyler: I hope that I shall see the clock stop—yes, it has—because this is a Front-Bench speech, so that enables me pay a rather more lengthy and generous tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I say that most sincerely: I know what it is like to make a maiden speech in the House. He did so with sincerity, eloquence and obvious, very considerable knowledge of his city and constituency. We all respect that. Indeed, I think that he will find not just from this debate, which is a bit unusual—I shall come to that in a moment—that all hon. Members respect others of all parties who genuinely seek to be good representatives in the House. That is what Parliament is all about. We welcome him very sincerely. We look forward to hearing a great many contributions from him in the future.
	I, too, walked up and down Washwood Heath road. I did not have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's hospitality at the various hostelries to which he referred, but I was struck by the welcome that was paid to all of us by his fellow citizens. I very much welcome the fact that he referred not just to his immediate predecessor, who was held in high regard in the House, but to predecessors from other parties—indeed, to my very close friend, Roy Jenkins, who served his city well when he was a Member for that constituency.
	I said just now that I would refer to the way in which the debate is unusual, as the hon. Gentleman will discover. On these occasions, we get an extremely interesting mix of non-party, in the main, contributions about constituency problems from hon. Members on both sides of the House, yet what is so interesting is that there is always a replication, a resonance, an echo from those on other sides of the House. That was true not only of some of the issues that he raises, but of the issues raised by other hon. Members. Surely, that is something very special about such debates—it should happen more often—but it is also intrinsic to the nature of Parliament that, on occasion, we can see in other hon. Members' experiences of their own special circumstances things that are of importance to us as well, and I want to refer briefly to some of those.
	I refer, first, to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), who is a regular on these occasions, although he does not always speak about the expertise in all parts of the House on fire safety equipment. The lack of attention that, all too often, successive Governments pay to that all-party expertise is very unfortunate. I hope that his words have been listened to with care.
	I very much share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), not just about post offices—that is serious enough—but, as he rightly said, about the attitude of British Telecom, which is doing precisely the same thing in my constituency as in his and, I suspect, other constituencies. The expectation that everyone should have a mobile phone—that, too, had a resonance in Birmingham—is simply wrong. There is an age group of people, very often those who most need to get to a pay phone for emergency purposes, who are unlikely to have mobile phones. The criteria that are being used by British Telecom are not practical.
	In my constituency, and I am sure in those of every other hon. Member, there are circumstances in which pay phones will continue to be important. The lack of consultation—here we go again—is symptomatic of an attitude of a privatised public utility. Let us be duly warned: the Post Office could so easily go the same way. Indeed, some would say that it is already going that way. Those two situations are very similar. It is true, I fear, that BT does not consult local authorities in the way that it should as a public service. I endorse very much what the hon. Gentleman said.
	I turn to the contribution made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). Obviously, I do not know the circumstances of the Yarl's Wood centre, but we remember the incident. It was many months ago, and I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman and local people have not yet been given an opportunity to hear precisely what lessons have been learned. I want particularly to take up his more general point about excessively complex and onerous red tape. Yes, all hon. Members are concerned about red tape. The problem is that, as we all know, it is a balancing act, is it not? For everyone who wants to control something that they do not like very much or thinks is a loophole in the tax system, there is someone else who feels that it is onerous and unnecessary. That balancing act should be a preoccupation not just of the Government, but of the House.
	A number of hon. Members give special attention to deregulation, but it goes much wider than that. The work that the Modernisation Committee is currently undertaking on ensuring that our scrutiny mechanisms for European regulations and directives is extremely important in that regard, not least because of gold-plating, of which we are all aware. So often, the proposals that end up in law in this country do not derive from anything that has been said or done in Brussels, let alone in the European Parliament; they derive from Whitehall.
	A former Minister told a Select Committee in the other place not that long ago—I felt that this was just so apposite—that, when he came to office, he insisted on a very simple chart whenever anything came before him that was said to derive from Brussels. He wanted to know what the original proposal was; he wanted to know what his own Department had added to it; he wanted to know why; and he wanted to know whether he could still change it. He told that Committee—I was appearing with him on that occasion—that, within two days of his leaving office, the Department scrapped that simple, little way in which a Minister could know what was going on. That does not speak very well of the way in which we deal with over-regulation and onerous red tape.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) also, inevitably, echoed concerns that we all share about the national health service in our own areas and the extent to which it seems to be immune to local consultation and input from people who actually know the practical results of what is likely to happen if changes are made. I sometimes go to local meetings to find out the views of the people in Cornwall who are interested in such matters, and ask whether any of them know who represents them on the area's strategic health authority. No people put up their hands, so I say, "You're absolutely right—nobody does. They are appointees; they are not elected." We Members of Parliament have to take a fallback position, but there is often no opportunity to make such a contribution. I know from experience that the accident and emergency department at St. Helier hospital is a classic example of something on which consultation would benefit all concerned.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) echoed many of our concerns. I was especially struck by his point about NHS dentistry, although it must be said that as a Secretary of State in the previous Government, he was partly responsible for what happened to NHS dentistry. The tearing up of the contract with dentists dealt the most devastating possible blow to the service. It is an extraordinary anomaly that we and our constituents pay national insurance contributions and think that we will get normal medical services from our local primary care trusts when we need them, yet the situation for dentistry is a complete postcode lottery. It is extremely difficult to access NHS dentistry in many parts of the country.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the use of publicly funded buildings under the auspices of learning and skills councils. We, as taxpayers, have invested in those buildings, so local communities should use them to the maximum extent.
	The right hon. Gentleman also talked about an issue with which many of us are grappling: the detailed local impact of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence. I acknowledge, as I am sure that we all do, that it is inevitably impossible to go through all details at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, if I had thought that the Secretary of State had not been interested in exchanging information about the details and intended to cut through the consultation programme by saying immediately, "This is what's going to happen", the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and I would be complaining about the situation to the same extent as he understandably is about lack of decisions and, thus, uncertainty. I would love to know precisely what is intended for RAF St. Mawgan, but I would much rather get the right answer a bit further down the track than to receive a snap answer now without proper consultation with all concerned. There is a genuine dilemma.
	I acknowledge precisely what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said because many of us are in a similar position regarding antisocial behaviour and the prevention of types of crime that are not of minuscule importance to those most affected by them. I pay tribute to this country's victim support organisations, but more regard must be paid to the victims of crime.
	I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman giving his support to the continuation of the neighbourhood watch network because that is an important part of the equation. He will know that the Home Secretary appears—I use the word "appears" because perceptions are important—to want to try to take away the voluntary nature of the network and impose something very different. That is unfortunate because the volunteers in our communities who make a major contribution should not be treated in such a way. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the matter both in the Chamber and directly with the Home Office, so I hope that there will be time to think again.
	Before I conclude my speech, I wish to make a point of my own. [Interruption.] I shall be brief, and if I had the opportunity to respond to everyone at the end of the debate, I would be even briefer. Before the House adjourns, will the Deputy Leader of the House secure a firm statement of the Government's response to the independent inquiry headed by Lord Lloyd on the illnesses suffered by British troops following their service in the 1991 Gulf war? Many hon. Members' constituents are veterans who still suffer chronic illness following their service in that operation.
	Some hon. Members will recall that during Prime Minister's questions last Wednesday, I asked the Prime Minister:
	"Will he now insist that appropriate Ministers give evidence to the independent inquiry under Lord Lloyd, so that the appearance of secrecy surrounding this issue is dispelled once and for all?"
	The Prime Minister said:
	"I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what Ministers have already said on the subject. Of course, it is a serious issue, and we investigate it continually. I will discuss with my colleagues the issue of giving evidence. It is important that we make progress on the basis of the actual evidence."—[Official Report, 14 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1405.]
	All of us who are concerned on behalf of veterans would welcome it if we could have an explicit statement before the end of the debate on whether the Prime Minister has had that conversation and, if so, on its outcome. I gave evidence to the inquiry yesterday, and by that stage Lord Lloyd had not received any specific response following my exchanges with the Prime Minister.
	At the Adjournment debate before the Whitsun recess, I congratulated the Deputy Leader of the House on the way in which he had secured responses from appropriate Ministers, but sadly the specific questions that I raised on that occasion have not produced such responses—I am sure that that is a momentary lapse in his normal efficiency. He might recall that I said then that the voters had buried the two-party system in 1997 and danced on its grave in 2001. Recently, of course, the electorate have continued that dance. This place, however, sadly still seems to reflect the two-party system of the past century.
	I apologise that I will not have the opportunity to respond to all hon. Members who contribute to the debate at its end, but I am sure that they will be with me in at least this: wishing not only the staff and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all of us, a relaxing recess, and a reinvigorating re-encounter with our electorate.

John Cryer: Like most hon. Members this afternoon, I shall raise a few constituency issues. I talked about school closures on the Floor of the House some time ago. The Conservative-run authority of my borough of Havering has recently had a fairly shambolic run during which it has put various primary schools under the threat of closure. First, it threatened the R. J. Mitchell primary school. It then threatened Ayloff primary school and Suttons primary school, while the closure threat to R. J. Mitchell was withdrawn. It then withdrew the closure threat to Ayloff primary school and put R. J. Mitchell back under threat once again. It has now withdrawn any closure threat in my constituency or elsewhere in the borough, yet it has managed to create concern and worry—verging on panic—among staff, governors, teachers and everyone connected to the schools, especially parents and children.
	At the end of that process, what has changed? Absolutely nothing. There was no change whatsoever, so there was no need for the authority to introduce the panic measure. All the schools remain open, but although the closure threats have been withdrawn, those three schools and others in the borough are left with the worry that the Tory council might come back with further threats of closure. I do not think that that will happen—partly because the authority will not be allowed to get away with it—but we should introduce a measure into education legislation that would allow the Department for Education and Skills at least to call for inquiries into local education authorities that behave as irresponsibly as Havering. I blame not the officers but the political leadership, which handled the situation ineptly and started a process that created, at best, worry among almost all people connected with the schools.
	The second issue that I wish to raise arises from my regular discussions with local groups that represent disabled people, especially the Havering association for people with disabilities and Havcare, which is a borough-wide group. Two key questions arise from those discussions, the first of which relates to the introduction of the Mental Capacity Bill, which was the draft Mental Incapacity Bill—the title has changed during its consideration in Parliament. The Bill has been widely welcomed by almost all relevant organisations. One of the key aspects of the Bill is that it will allow people who do not have the capacity to advocate their own cause or case to appoint advocates on their behalf. The Government have not yet answered a question that has been put to me, although I am sure that they will: how will advocacy be accessed by those people who need it? For instance, will any costs be incurred, especially by close relatives? A Mencap press release of 28 June states:
	"Millions of people with dementia, autism, a learning disability and mental health problems will be better off under the new Mental Capacity Bill, but the Bill will be 'toothless' unless it ensures the availability of advocates, a coalition of 39 charities has warned."
	That coalition is the Making Decisions Alliance, which represents 39 charities and voluntary groups.
	My second question relates to the requirement for a proportion of carers in homes to have a qualification at, or equivalent to, national vocational qualification level 2. That is probably a desirable change, recently introduced by the Government, but are grants available to achieve that? As far as I know, they are not, but they probably should be. In this context, I am talking about small care homes, some of which face genuine difficulties and have done so for the past few years, although those have been exaggerated by press reports to some extent. If a grant is available to those people who have to attain NVQ level 2, it will help smaller care homes to deal with their problems.
	The third issue that concerns me is the use of fireworks and recent legislation on fireworks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) for piloting the Fireworks Bill through Parliament. It is much needed. I get reams of complaints every year because of the antisocial use of fireworks. The Bill answered many of the pleas that I get in my mailbag, and I am sure that other hon. Members receive the same pleas.
	I refer the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 1513 in my name. Although many of the Bill's provisions are welcome, it appears that the original proposal to license all premises that sell fireworks at any time of year is being watered down. That is a central plank of the legislation. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and he agrees, and it was his Bill, after all.
	If, as seems likely, the Government are going to abandon that licensing system, it could neuter the Bill. Many of its other elements are commendable and badly needed, but if we abandon that licensing system, we are abandoning a main plank of the Bill. The provision is necessary during October, November and December, when fireworks become a particular nuisance—although these days they are a nuisance almost the whole year around. I have a pile of letters in my office from various constituents, including one from the Rev. Bob Love, the vicar of St. John's in my constituency, whom I know well because I have surgeries at his church. He highlights the importance of licensing premises.
	My final concern relates to antisocial behaviour and drunkenness. Although my borough recently had a substantial increase in the number of police officers and police community support officers—the PCSOs were introduced in the past few months—the big problem is that daft decisions by the local council in the past have meant that Romford has a nightclub capacity of between 12,000 and 14,000. That is the biggest nightclub capacity in the whole of the south-east outside London's west end. It is an enormous capacity and draws in people from all over east London, Essex and further afield across the south-east. It has obvious law and order implications that were not thought through when planning permission was sought and granted for various nightclubs, which were then issued with licences.
	What tends to happen is that on Friday and Saturday nights police strength is drawn from other parts of the borough. The increase in police strength means that the problem is not as bad as it used to be and has been mitigated to some extent. However, we still need to draw some police officers from other parts of the borough. The Government could help by introducing a regulation to control the practice of happy hours, which sometimes go on for two or three hours, in nightclubs. Drinks are very cheap and, as a result, there is widespread, and sometimes serious, intoxication.
	I go out on patrol with the police on a fairly regular basis and see the result of those happy hours around Romford, especially late at night. Happy hours reflect the irresponsible behaviour of certain breweries and nightclub owners. If we cannot regulate happy hours, I have another solution. It is a bit of an old Labour solution. If it were up to me, I would nationalise the breweries. Bringing the breweries into public ownership worked in the first world war, why can it not work now? We sorted them out then and we can sort them out again. We could regulate, control and ensure that the problem does not arise in the future. Of course, it would have the added advantage that we would not have to tax the breweries because all the money would come to us anyway.

Oliver Heald: It would also give us an opportunity to test out the theory, which we have always had, that the Government could not organise a **** in a brewery.

John Cryer: I will ignore that.
	Nationalising the breweries would be advantageous. All the money would come into the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could use it to invest in schools, hospitals, police and so on, and antisocial behaviour would be controlled as a result.

John Wilkinson: It is a great pleasure to endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said in tribute to the maiden speech of the newly elected hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I am sure that he has a promising career in the House.
	It was good that the hon. Gentleman spoke so warmly of his predecessors, most notably the late Roy Jenkins, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and, of course, Terry Davis, who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), has given most distinguished service to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This country and its delegation can be proud that he is now its Secretary-General.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill wound up his speech with reminiscences about happy walks to the Fox and Goose—no doubt many of us empathised with him at that point—and talked about the industrial performance in Birmingham, the great city's commitment to manufacturing, and what it did in world war two by providing Spitfires and Hurricanes for the front line of the Royal Air Force. His remarks and those of the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday lead me to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in referring to the mini White Paper on defence, inappropriately named "Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities". That is a misnomer if ever there was one. I do not believe that it would be doing justice to our servicemen and women for the House to wait several months before delivering a considered verdict on it. It was based on false assumptions.
	The Secretary of State said yesterday:
	"We measured numbers of people and platforms in the cold war because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces."—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 343.]
	We were doing nothing of the kind. Throughout the cold war we maintained forces vastly inferior in number to those of the Warsaw pact countries. We had enough troops in place to hold the line for 48 hours or, at the very most, 72 hours, at which point we were bound to give way or to invoke nuclear retaliation. The fear of nuclear retaliation provided the deterrent that kept the peace. It is false logic to suggest that we do not need adequate numbers now on the basis of the argument that during the cold war we needed large numbers of forces. We need, of course, a balance between numbers of well-equipped forces, capabilities, mobility, flexibility and firepower, which in part the Secretary of State is delivering, but which is not fully achieved because of the dictates of Her Majesty's Treasury.
	The forces' morale will be gravely affected by the cuts that the Defence Secretary has introduced, and they are cuts. No one can suggest that reductions in the Royal Air Force of 7,500, the Army of 1,500 and the Navy of a similar number do not constitute cuts—they most certainly do. To withdraw the whole of the RAF's Jaguar force, its offensive support aircraft, currently based at Coltishall, before the tranche 2 Typhoon is even ordered, let alone available, is highly irresponsible because the capability that they provide ensures that our forces on the ground can do their job effectively, with the minimum of loss. It is, however, in line with what the Government have done before: the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers from service with the Fleet Air Arm, some eight years, at best, before the new F-35 JSF aircraft come into service.
	The Government are happy to allow our armed forces to be vulnerable; indeed, they accentuate that vulnerability, as they are doing by reducing the Nimrod force from 12 to eight maritime patrol aeroplanes, just when the Dutch are completely abandoning their maritime patrol aircraft. For us to reduce this capability is most irresponsible.
	It is irresponsible also to conjecture about reductions in the helicopter force. We need the mobility that the helicopter force provides now more than ever in this age of uncertain threats and global terrorism. Likewise, it is most unwise for the Government not to have placed an order for the new tanker aircraft, the A330–200, which the RAF is banking on. It is also irresponsible to eliminate the air defence capability of the RAF Regiment at a time when protecting from attack the few aircraft that we do possess is crucial. I also find absolutely extraordinary the idea that, when terrorism is all too rife, one can put all one's transport and tanker assets on one base, by closing RAF Lyneham and putting everything at RAF Brize Norton.
	The Government are letting the country down and they are letting the armed forces down. What a way to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar next year—by cutting the fleet by about a quarter and happily allowing the French to have a much larger navy than us. The United Kingdom should have the biggest navy in Europe; we should be proud of the fact, because it is concomitant with our interests as a global trading nation.
	It is also unwise to leave totally sacrosanct a quarter of the British Army in Germany. No one wants to see a reduction of the infantry battalions—they are overstretched already, and they are rotated on to operational tours all too frequently—but that the Army should maintain about a quarter of its strength, static, in Germany, expending vast sums to the benefit of the German economy when it is the British economy that we should be sustaining, I find decidedly odd, especially when, in the second Gulf war, it did not appear that the Germans were even on our side. They seemed to be militating against our efforts rather than supporting us as good NATO allies should.
	Our Government are embarked on a European security and defence policy, and we all wish that well because it is in the interests of our continent and our nation that it should succeed. The European Union is to take over NATO's peacekeeping role in Bosnia at the end of this year. However, I wonder whether, in the event of a major commitment such as Iraq and a serious crisis, not just peacekeeping, in the Balkans or Northern Ireland, with the reductions that the Defence Secretary has outlined we will be able to meet both, or other multiple, obligations. I doubt it very much.
	I return to the theme of irresponsibility, which is at the heart of the defence White Paper that the Government have put before us. We can play a role, not only here, but collectively with parliamentarians of like mind on the continent. I am pleased that the French are maintaining increased defence spending and I admire the way in which they are cocking a snook at the stability pact, which many of us thought was ridiculous and voted against at the time that the Maastricht treaty was going through the House.
	The European security and defence policy needs to be scrutinised. Collectively, we must ensure that we in Europe make the best use of our common resources for defence, and to do that national parliamentarians need to engage together. I suggest that we do so through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, whose 50 years of existence we shall celebrate in October. The assembly has done its job magnificently because national parliamentarians provide the Defence Ministers and the defence budgets which make the European security and defence policy possible. However, the latest defence review ensures that making the European security and defence policy possible for the United Kingdom will be much harder. For this reason, I believe the White Paper to be irresponsible.

Mike Hall: I join others in congratulating our new hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He spoke extremely warmly about his predecessor, our right hon. Friend Terry Davis, who has left Parliament to become Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I served with Terry Davis for five years on the Public Accounts Committee; even though we were Opposition Members then, Terry was a master of holding the Government's senior accounting officers to account for the projects that the Committee examined. We shall miss Terry, but he has been replaced by an hon. Friend who, judging by his maiden speech, will make an excellent contribution to Parliament.
	My hon. Friend told us about his constituency, but most of us know it from the time that we spent there during the run-up to the by-election. I spent a couple of afternoons delivering leaflets on his behalf, and I am delighted that my efforts contributed to his success. He also spoke eloquently about the history of his fascinating constituency and the illustrious people who have preceded him as MP for that part of Birmingham. He has a tough act to follow, but the challenges that he has set for himself in representing the people of Hodge Hill are entirely right and I am sure that he will meet them extremely well. I look forward to many more speeches from my new hon. Friend.
	I have four local issues to raise, but may I first ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to find out, perhaps through the Modernisation Committee, whether it is necessary for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to join in debates such as this one by commenting on all the speeches made before his? I am only glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke before I did.
	As I said, the issues I wish to speak about are local, but they have a bearing on national Government policy. The first is a recent decision by one of my local authorities, Vale Royal borough council, which is Tory and Liberal Democrat- controlled, to introduce changes to its refuse collection service under the guise of meeting Government recycling targets. The local authority rightly conducted a vigorous consultation exercise asking people whether they would be willing to participate in a system that recycled more rubbish from the domestic waste stream via kerbside collections. Of course, the response was an overwhelming "Yes". However, the local authority did not clearly spell out—it was mentioned only in the small print—that the ordinary domestic refuse collection service would be reduced from a weekly collection to a fortnightly one.
	There is uproar in my constituency about the decision. Concerns have been voiced about health and safety. We are beginning to experience problems associated with the summer months, such as the smell from bins, and there have been reports of infestations of maggots and flies in bins. My constituents have raised their concerns with the local authority, but it says that it will not respond to letters of complaint or register phone calls as complaints because my constituents are raising nothing new. That is the wrong way for the local authority to approach the problem: instead, it should try to explain to the people living in Weaver Vale and the Vale Royal borough council area why the new system will be put in place. However, its explanations so far have been confusing and, in some ways, downright dishonest.
	First, the local authority said that the Government are demanding that by 2007 the authority must meet stringent recycling targets. That is true. Secondly, it says that if the local authority does not meet the targets it will face a fine of £120,000 a day or £44 million a year. That is abject nonsense: no fines are imposed under the scheme. The Government have said that if recycling does not remove the amount of material going to landfill, the price of landfill may increase, and if a local authority overtips its quota, it may have to pay more money. By no stretch of the imagination will that result in a fine of £120,000 a day.
	When those explanations were challenged, the local authority said, "We have to do this; otherwise we will have to go back to a weekly recycling collection, which will cost us an extra £1 million." Therein lies the answer to the problem: the authority has cut the domestic refuse collection to save money. It now says that if it returns to a weekly service, people will not recycle. What nonsense! The local authority should say that it will look again at the issue.
	When a bin is put out, the authority will not collect any surplus rubbish that is placed in black bin bags, which is termed "side rubbish". Section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires a local authority to collect domestic waste without charge. Will the Minister explore with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is an obligation on a local authority to collect side rubbish—domestic rubbish placed at the side of a wheelie bin. When it is left, it attracts vermin and it is spread across the neighbourhood. That leads to a greater incidence of fly-tipping, and we have an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	I shall move on to another issue that I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Transport. For the past two years, in the Northwich part of my constituency we have held an event called the Thundersprint, which is a motor cycle extravaganza. Motor cyclists from throughout the country arrive at a car park in Northwich to demonstrate their motor cycles, which can be vintage all the way through to formula one. There is a great carnival. This year the two-day event attracted about 70,000 visitors and brought a huge sum of money into the local economy. It is a fantastic event. No incidents were reported to the police and there were no health and safety issues.
	The event has to take place on a car park because even if we closed a section of the highway to demonstrate the motor cycles, they would not be allowed on it because they do not comply with current road traffic Acts. I have been pressing the Department of Transport to see whether a way can be found round that problem, so that next year's event can take place on the public highway, which would be closed to other traffic. So far, that has proved difficult.
	We cannot use the car park at Northwich for the next five years because the Government, following my insistence, have provided £28 million to stabilise the town centre because of problems that we have with salt mines. I hope that the Minister, on my behalf, will press the Department of Transport with a view to resolving the problem.
	I wish to take up an issue that I have raised already in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall—I raised it directly with the Minister of State for Transport. It concerns a section of railway line that is commonly known as the Halton curve, which, though not disused, is used only once or twice a year. The reason for that is that to close a railway line it is necessary to go through a rigorous public inquiry procedure. It may even be necessary for legislation to be discussed on the Floor of the House. Over the past few years, the line has had one or two services a year. They run on a Saturday morning and no passengers are picked up. The service goes along the line so that it stays open. It is known as the parliamentary train. This year, the Strategic Rail Authority decided, in its wisdom, to do a head count on this strange service to see whether it is being used. Strangely enough, it found that the answer is no.
	The SRA has written to me to say that it is thinking of closing the Halton curve. If it does so, it will be a passive closure. I have yet to find out what that means, but I have asked. This is nonsensical. If the line were resignalled and some investment were made in it, trains could travel in both directions and it would be the final piece in the north-west railway jigsaw. It would link north Wales to Liverpool without people having to use the west coast main line, and would allow north Walian traffic to go through Liverpool and on to the north-west and the Lake district. It would connect with the Allerton interchange on the Merseyside light railway, thus completing the circular network, and it would link that network to Liverpool John Lennon airport. Stakeholders across the north-west are all in favour of the development, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tell our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that we ought to look at ways of keeping the line open instead of closing it and ending the potential for future developments.
	I shall conclude with something that I raised in last year's summer Adjournment debate—the merger of Halton and Warrington hospitals. When my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I agreed to that merger, we did so on the grounds that there would be no reduction in services at our hospital. The clinical director of North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust took unilateral action more than 12 months ago and, without consulting clinicians or senior management at either hospital, decided to close the intensive care unit. It remains closed following that decision by Dr. Mwanji. Mr. McMillan of Whiston hospital produced an independent report, and the Bishop Auckland report says that the beds should remain open. The Commission for Health Improvement said that there was no threat to health services. The only person standing in the way of the unit reopening is Dr. Mwanji, the clinical director. Even the chairman of the British Medical Association said that those beds should be reinstated, so I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that the clinical director of Warrington hospital should be sacked.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his impressive maiden speech. Having been elected for the first time at the last election, my own maiden speech is fresh in my mind, and I remember what a nerve-racking occasion it was. I admire the hon. Gentleman's stamina. After fighting a stressful by-election he looks very fresh indeed. I once fought a by-election with considerably less success, but I recall what a stressful and tiring experience it was.
	I wish to raise some matters affecting my constituency, which is a remote rural area comprising a large part of mainland Scotland and 26 inhabited islands. It is a beautiful place in which to live and work, but its remoteness and the cost of travelling to and from the islands present challenges to people who run businesses there. The cost of parcel deliveries is a frequent source of complaint among my constituents. If they place an order through a mail order company, they almost invariably have to pay a surcharge. Parcelforce has drawn a line across Scotland from Arrochar on Loch Long to a point on the North sea coast near Banff, and the cost of sending a parcel anywhere north of that line far exceeds the cost of sending one elsewhere in the country. It is a large surcharge: it costs almost double to send some parcel weights across the highland line. That imposes an extra burden on businesses in the highlands and islands, particularly those that rely on mail order deliveries.
	The Government should extend Royal Mail's universal service obligation, whereby it must deliver letters to all parts of the country at the same price, to Parcelforce. When I raise the matter with Ministers, the standard reply is that Royal Mail delivers parcels at a uniform price to any part of the country. However, as with letters, parcels sent via the standard Royal Mail service are not signed for on delivery. Mail order companies want a signature on delivery, which involves an extra cost. The Royal Mail parcel delivery has a weight limit; it is therefore of limited value to them and, in addition, there is no guaranteed delivery time. However, Parcelforce parcels are signed for on delivery and the service offers a guaranteed delivery time. Businesses want to use Parcelforce, but highlands businesses are deterred from doing so by the extra costs. That is discrimination against a small part of the country and it should end.
	Dairy farming is an important industry in the Kintyre peninsula. Ever since I was elected, farmers have been telling me that the farm-gate price for milk is nowhere near enough to cover their costs. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently investigated milk pricing in the United Kingdom and found that farmers' comments are correct. The report states in paragraph 24:
	"Average farmgate prices are . . . not high enough to cover the farmers' costs"
	and goes on to say in paragraph 26:
	"UK farmgate prices are not only inadequate to recompense farmers for the cost of milk production, they are also consistently below the EU average."
	The Select Committee investigation also reported, at paragraph 42, that the
	"dairy market is not operating as it should"
	and at paragraph 55 that
	"processors' costs appear improbably high".
	Clearly, more investigation by the Government is needed into milk pricing. A regulator should be appointed to oversee the dairy industry; only that will enable us to find out why the market is not working as it should. The market should operate with greater transparency and we need an investigation into the Select Committee's belief that
	"processors' costs appear improbably high".
	We also need to look at UK competition law. Its practical effect appears to be to prevent milk producers from forming large-scale co-operatives. That is not the case in other EU countries, where large-scale dairy co-operatives have been formed. It means that in the UK the small farmer is fighting an unequal struggle against the big supermarkets and the big dairy companies. A regulator would be a good step forward.
	I turn to vehicle taxation. The price of petrol on the islands is often about 15p more than the price at a city petrol station. On one occasion, having started the day in Glasgow and gone to Mull, I found that the cost was a staggering 20p more at a remote filling station on Mull, compared with Glasgow. The extra price has a devastating impact on the economies of island communities. It is also rather galling that in areas where there is no public transport alternative, the price of fuel is highest. The logic for high fuel prices is to encourage people to use public transport, but the illogicality of the present system is that the price of fuel is highest where there is no public transport alternative.
	One short-term fix that I would support is a reduction in the duty on fuel sold at island filling stations. That would create a level playing field for island businesses. In the longer term we need to move from fuel duty towards a system of road pricing. That would be more sophisticated and would enable higher charges to be levied on roads where there was a public transport alternative, compared with remote rural roads where there is no such alternative.
	Fuel duty is rather a crude way of taxing the motorist. In the past it had the beneficial effect of encouraging vehicle manufacturers greatly to improve the efficiency of their vehicles. That has certainly been effective, but I suspect that we are now at the point where further technological advances are unlikely to make much impact on fuel efficiency. The time is right to move to the more sophisticated system of road pricing.
	Finally, I turn to a matter that various hon. Members have raised this afternoon—yesterday's defence statement. My constituency's local regiment is a well-known one, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It is a famous regiment with more than 200 years of service to the British Army. The clear intention of the Government's defence review is to merge the regiment with other highland regiments.
	Yesterday's statement from the Secretary of State for Defence announced the loss of a Scottish infantry battalion. However, the Government's plans to reduce infantry numbers are short-sighted. The Army is already overstretched. The Government's plans appear to assume no new commitments for the Army. I should have thought that one of the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan was that while all the high tech might be very good at winning the war, the difficult task of winning the peace requires highly skilled and committed soldiers on the ground. That is a part of the battle that the British Army has proved to be very good at. It has carried out the task of winning the peace far better than the American army. It is important that we keep our infantry strength at its current level, because as well as fighting wars and peacekeeping in many parts of the world, the Army has to deal with unexpected matters at home such as foot and mouth and firefighters' strikes.
	Recruits want to join local regiments with a long and proud tradition. Merging the Argylls into a new regiment called, say, the North Scotland regiment, is bound to have a negative impact on recruitment compared with keeping the famous, long-standing name of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I remind the Government that 30 years ago a previous Government tried to abolish the Argylls. A massive campaign to save the regiment succeeded, and the Government gave way. I advise this Government not take on the Argylls, because I suspect that, like their predecessors, they will buckle under the weight of the subsequent campaign.

Ann Taylor: I start, as have several colleagues, by congratulating my hon. Friend the new Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his speech and on the way in which he presented it. He paid tribute to his predecessor, Terry Davis. I echo his tribute and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who, like me, worked closely with Terry over many years. We were all struck by the calm assurance and wit of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. When he said that his predecessors had served Hodge Hill well, I think that all hon. Members immediately thought that he would follow in that tradition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill talked about education, and said that people in his part of Birmingham had never had such good educational opportunities as they do at the present time. I hope that my hon. Friend continues his interest in education, because the changes that the Government have made in that respect have been among their greatest achievements and will produce long-lasting and significant consequences in terms of opportunities for all our young people in the future.
	I am particularly proud of what has happened in education, from the Sure Start places, which are a breakthrough development helping youngsters and their parents, to the changes at primary level, including the significant impact of reduced class sizes. In Dewsbury, we have also seen significant improvements at secondary level. Many schools have achieved specialist status, there has been a new level of co-operation between some schools, and, although there have been a few hitches, school buildings have been significantly improved through public-private partnerships.
	We have experienced many improvements in education locally, but despite all the good work that has been done and all the investment that the Government have put in, two problems have recently arisen. I am glad that today sees the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills entitled "Secondary Education: Schools Admissions", because I want to say a few words about admissions in Dewsbury and the problems that have been created by the Lib Dem council's decision to review its admissions policy. Although I accept that that is not an easy matter and there are no easy solutions, one school in Dewsbury has received 50 appeals, 22 of which are from parents trying to get a child into the school to join their brothers and sisters. The constituent who first brought that to my attention, Tracie Kilburn, already has a daughter and son at the school, and her youngest child wanted to go to there too, but that is no longer possible because of the change in approach by the Lib Dem council. The Select Committee report suggests one or two ways forward, including that the House should be more prescriptive about admissions policies. It is not easy to get them right but I do not believe that the council should have changed the siblings rule and left so many young people and their parents in a difficult position.
	My second reason for speaking about education is a problem that has got worse through the success in recent years of education in Dewsbury. We have a tradition of under-achievement; we have no tradition of staying on at school and going into post-16 and higher education. Nowadays, there is a significant increase in youngsters who do well at GCSE and throughout their school careers. The problem is critical after GCSE because we have so little traditional post-16 academic provision. Dewsbury college is very good for much non-traditional, non-AS and A-level work, but the majority of youngsters in Dewsbury have to leave the town for their post-16 academic education.
	We have a Catholic high school, which has a limited number of places and gets good results. We also have Mirfield Free Grammar school, which, I am glad to say, is a comprehensive school down the road that takes some youngsters. However, the academically gifted of Dewsbury mostly have to go to Huddersfield and sometimes Leeds and Wakefield for post-16 AS and A-level education. They have to travel a long way—some take three buses—and that requires great commitment. We therefore need local, quality AS and A-level provision. All the heads of the high schools in Dewsbury agree about that. They tell me that many youngsters are put off staying in education because they cannot face the extra hassle travelling such a long way. They are achieving more and they want to achieve more, but such provision on our doorstep would enhance the staying-on rate and provide much greater opportunities.
	Ministers are sympathetic to the cause. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) talked to heads and was impressed by their proposals. We have more post-14 co-operation between those schools and they all say the same thing: we need quality provision. The sixth form colleges in Huddersfield are of high quality and would be interested in providing satellites in Dewsbury, but unfortunately the Liberal Democrat council will not support that approach and is currently blocking such progress. It is inhibiting the opportunities of young people in Dewsbury. Given all the successes that we are enjoying in education, we must improve young people's aspirations and make it easier for them to stay in education and not block their hopes, as the Liberal Democrat council is doing.

Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I have fought several by-elections and the major difference between us is that he won his. Another difference is that he gave an excellent maiden speech and mine was rubbish. It was on Maastricht—need I say more, apart from "Sorry"?
	I should like the Minister to take up several matters before we adjourn and I am sure that, characteristically, he will agree to them all. One is on regional government. We know that the Government are minded to change their view. Harold Wilson said that a week was a long time in politics but we now know that a night is a long time in politics. I do not especially want the referendums but if we have to hold one in the north-west, why cannot we go ahead on 4 November and have the ballot boxes? They are tried and tested. We have them for general elections, so let us have a referendum on 4 November and conduct it in the traditional manner.
	Telephone boxes were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). BT has announced that it wants to close 25 in my constituency, all of which are in rural areas. Hon. Members who know my constituency will know that some of the villages involved—Pendleton, Dunsop Bridge, Bashall Eaves, Chatburn, Rimington, Twiston, Bolton by Bowland, Slaidburn and Mitton, for example—are very small indeed. They are in rural areas and they rely on their telephone boxes. BT tells us that "It's good to talk". Well, some of us need telephone boxes to be able to talk, and they are essential in an emergency. There is a universal obligation involved here, and BT should be forced to ensure that all those telephone boxes remain open.
	Conversations about speed cameras always get people going, whether they crop up in a pub or over tea somewhere. People get very frustrated by the way in which speed cameras have been abused. That is certainly the case in Lancashire, where the number of speed cameras rose last year from 206 to 297. The number of fatalities also increased during that period, so something is going wrong there. In the village of Grimsargh, I witnessed one of the mobile speed camera units with all four wheels on the pavement. That was completely wrong, and I have asked the police to look into the matter, because I think that the vehicle was illegally parked. The police should have booked themselves. I hope that they will look again at the case of anyone who was booked on that day by that vehicle, and rescind all the fines that were imposed. The people who use those cameras need proper training to ensure that they do not break the law while trying to enforce it. If those vehicles are parked at accident blackspots, as they should be, there should be proper signage so that motorists will realise that it is a blackspot and check their speed accordingly. We do not want accidents, do we?
	Another issue that crops up is that of wind farms. We are very lucky in my constituency in that we do not have any, but my goodness me, they are everywhere else. The Government have certain targets and are looking to wind farms to help them to meet them. I would ask them please to look again at other sustainable forms of energy and, indeed, at nuclear power, if that is going to be necessary. I know that the Government have also considered siting wind farms offshore, and permission has just been given to site one outside Swansea, near Porthcawl. That will scar a tourist area, and a number of people are already complaining about it. I have not spoken to one local resident who likes the fact that the wind turbines will be visible from the shore in an area in which tourism is vital. If we spent only a fraction of the money that we spend on subsidising these wind turbines on energy conservation, we would conserve more energy than they can produce.
	I have often mentioned post office closures in the House, and I did so again at Prime Minister's questions just over a week ago. I wish that the Government would look again at their policy on this. The post office network is vital, particularly in rural areas but also in urban areas. A couple of post offices have just closed in Clitheroe, resulting in difficult journeys for many people who want to use a post office, particularly if they are disabled. We ought to look again at the issue, and cherish the fact that we have this network. We do not want to be saying, in 20 years' time, "Oh gosh, if only we'd saved the post offices! How valuable they were!"
	People have also mentioned the defence cuts that were announced yesterday. I have the Queen's Lancashire Regiment in my constituency and I received a number of letters, prior to the announcement, from people saying that they wished to retain the regiment as a regiment in its own right. It has a proud history that stretches back 300 years, and more battle honours than any other regiment. This is not a party political point; I know that a number of Labour MPs want the Queen's Lancashire Regiment to retain its identity. There will be a campaign to save it, and I hope that the Government will show as much flexibility on this issue as they did on changing the referendums in the north-west. I ask them please to think again. If we want people to join these old, historic regiments, we must retain them and we need to think about how that can be done.
	I was at the Farnborough air show yesterday, looking at the Eurofighter Typhoon. What a superb aircraft it is! Part of it is produced in my constituency, and I call on the Government to ensure that they support the military manufacturing skills that we have in the north-west by announcing their commitment to the second tranche as soon as possible, to give some security to the people in my constituency who work on that project.
	Another point is that we are now going into a recess, which lasts about six weeks, before we come back for that useless couple of weeks in September, and then we will be off again until just after the party conferences. We cannot table written questions during that entire time. I know how hard working Ministers are, as they were under previous Governments, and they work during the recess. Why cannot we table written questions during the recess, with the proviso that it may take a bit longer for the responses to come back? We are all working—it is not as if we are not doing anything for that period. Would the Government consider, as part of the modernisation programme, the possibility of introducing written questions during recesses, which can be answered during a certain period, whatever that happens to be?
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) mentioned fuel tax. Let us be cautious about a shift to a tax on mileage. The figure of £1.30 a mile has been bandied around in newspapers. I represent a rural constituency, where even a fraction of that would be hugely expensive. We all know what will happen: it will be introduced at one rate, which is fairly low, and people will think that it is not too bad, but two or three years down the line we shall all be pleading, in Adjournment debates such as this, for it not to be put up to £1.30 or £1.50. The car is essential in some rural areas.

Alan Reid: The road pricing system that I would like to see would involve no extra taxation on the motorist. The total take would be the same, but it would avoid the present system whereby people in remote areas pay more per mile because of higher fuel tax.

Nigel Evans: We have all heard of neutral taxation before. The temptation for Chancellors of the Exchequer—this one and others—to slap on another stealth tax whenever possible will be too enormous to resist.
	The Deputy Leader of the House and I have bandied words previously about regional television. We both know, as we represent north-west constituencies, how important regional news is. Richard Frediani is leaving ITN to be head of regional news for Granada Television. I am sure that he is an excellent journalist and will do a great job there. It is important, however, that we stress the importance of regional television and regional news to all Members of Parliament to enable us to get our message across. We want to get more people voting at general and local elections, and the way in which we can influence them is to get our messages, and our campaigns, across on regional television.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will reinforce the message that regional television is vital to Members of Parliament in getting our message across to constituents on some of the campaigns that I have mentioned in my all-too-brief speech this afternoon. I wish everybody a happy, eventful and effective recess.

Michael Jabez Foster: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill—[Hon. Members: "Where?"] I am sorry. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his maiden speech? I am sure that I was in the right place. The eloquence of his contribution made it worth while travelling up to Birmingham.
	In my Hastings and Rye constituency, I have the honour of representing around 1,600 civil servants. Not surprisingly, recent announcements have caused alarm and despondency. I therefore want to make a few brief comments on behalf of this much-maligned group of public servants.
	My constituents work mainly in the Child Support Agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions' jobcentres, which are both vital services in delivering the Government's agenda. The Government rightly strive, and have an obligation, to increase efficiency in delivering public services, but we do not need to undermine the confidence and self-respect of employees to achieve that end.
	I therefore want the Government to distance themselves from the Opposition's characterisation of civil servants as pen-pushing, bowler-hatted, time- serving bureaucrats, and to recognise that, in the main, they are hard-working, dedicated public servants, deserving of respect just as much as nurses, doctors and teachers. Folk such as Eddie Fleming, Anita Brown and Jacqui Ottley—some of my constituents who have visited me recently—are de-motivated when they perceive that their efforts are not valued. Those civil servants, frequently referred to as back-room, often deliver personal services to some of the most vulnerable citizens—lone parents, pensioners and the disabled.
	Of course, the Government have a right and duty to improve delivery where that is possible, but I want to make four brief cautionary points. First, we have come up with a figure of 80,000 or so back-room redundancies, but where is the detail? What particular services will be delivered in a different way? At present, many of my so-called back-room civil service constituents are overworked, doing no more than we have asked them to do. What jobs do we not want done? When claimants are waiting, as I am told, 14 days for a ring back, that is clearly not overstaffing.
	Secondly, if the perceived answer is technology, beware. Almost no large-scale Government computer programme has proved successful. I am not luddite in my belief that technology can provide efficiency savings, but in practice it is not happening. I am told that the current DWP computer programme for registering claims loses records and makes bizarre calculations, and it is not simply human error. We cannot lose jobs until the technology is proven.
	Thirdly, our benefits systems are now so complex that to reduce the work load on civil servants we need to make life simpler. Sometimes rough justice is preferable to no justice when the complexity of the system gets things wrong. I believe that a system should always provide that a claimant knows whether they are eligible for a benefit and whether the system has provided the right answer. In many of our systems now, that simply does not happen.
	Fourthly, in seeking to change the work force we must surely treat them fairly. They already feel unrewarded and undervalued. I do not wish to comment on pay rates generally—to some extent, that is a matter for the market, although I support equal pay for equal work. However, I consider that the DWP future reward strategy proposals are bizarre. In fact, they are a complete horlicks. I am told that what they mean is that wage rates will not be based on merit alone—the claim made for them—but on a competitive assessment which means that only a few can succeed. I reckon that we would not be that pleased if such a proposal were implemented in the House.
	I come to my plea. My constituency of Hastings and Rye is an area of regeneration. The Government have done a brilliant job with the direct investment made through the South East England Development Agency, which in turn has cut unemployment in my constituency by some 1,600. We remain, however, the blackspot for unemployment in the south-east so public service jobs are vital to our local economy. I would welcome an assurance that, whatever changes are made, the Lyons promise still holds, namely, that areas such as Hastings will not lose civil service jobs simply because they are in the south-east and, better still, that jobs from the capital will be relocated there.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his splendid maiden speech and I wish him well in the future.
	Before we adjourn for the summer, I wish to raise a number of points quickly. Unfortunately, since the previous of these Adjournment debates, this House—the mother of all Parliaments—has been further sidelined. Time after time, matters that should be brought to the House first are shared with unelected representatives such as members of the media or local authority officials. I very much regret that. We have had two important reports recently. The first was such a laugh that a new brand of paint has been brought out as a result of it. The second was critical of everyone but no one was to blame. Then the gentleman who runs all this fiasco, who occupies No. 10 Downing street, comes to the Dispatch Box on Tuesday and admits to the House that he has made various mistakes. Yet nothing is done. If ever there was a resigning matter, what we were told on Tuesday was certainly a reason for the Prime Minister to resign.
	It was brass-taking nerve for this rotten Government to announce a five-year strategy to tackle crime. The Prime Minister was elected Labour leader on the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". He is now in his eighth year of trying to tackle crime and the Government have the nerve to come out with a five-year strategy to tackle it. What is wrong with law enforcement in this country is all to do with management. The two people I blame for the mismanagement are the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must wake up every morning thinking, "Now what can I next make an offence?" What is going on at the moment is laughable. All Members of Parliament realise that there are serious matters to be dealt with.
	I am delighted that my local newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser, launched a campaign called "More Feet on the Beat", which called on the Home Secretary to provide sufficient funding for an extra 10 police officers. The newspaper encouraged its readers to send in coupons and I was delighted to present the Prime Minister with more than 2,000 coupons yesterday and to present a petition to the House. The newspaper, its editor Mr. Graeme Allen and reporter Luke Walsh, should be commended for the campaign. I am delighted to tell the House that after four months the campaign has had some success. There is a more visible police presence across Southend, West and one of the three police stations—Eastwood—is now partly open. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will do what he can to take the issue further.
	On several occasions I have mentioned the tragedy of my constituent, Maajid Nawaz. He was jailed for five years on 25 March 2004, accused of belonging to the Islamic Liberation Movement. I met the Foreign Secretary on 11 May to raise my concerns further and to ask the Government to make a plea for clemency on behalf of Maajid and the other detainees. I recently made further representations to the Foreign Secretary following the publication of the judge's summation. I have now received a letter from Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. Mrs. Abi Nawaz has advised me that on Egyptian independence day—tomorrow—the President of Egypt has the power to release foreign nationals from prison. I am disappointed that the Government are unable to ask for that to happen because the men have not served three quarters of their sentences. If there is any chance to make progress on that issue in the next 24 hours, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to do just that. I certainly wish to thank the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Symons for their efforts and I hope that the nightmare suffered by Maajid and his fellow detainees will soon end.
	Many Members of Parliament have mentioned the nightmare of post office closures. I represent a tiny urban area, but yet another five post offices—Bridgewater drive, Earls Hall, Eastwoodbury lane, the Ridgeway and the West road—have been suggested for closure. Local residents are very upset about the proposal because there are so many senior citizens in my constituency. I have complained to the Post Office, because its consultation process is a farce. I hope to present a petition on the issue later.
	In May, I presented a Bill that would have put the onus on the mobile phone operators to prove to local authorities that there was a need for mobile phone masts and that they had no health implications. In June, I asked the Prime Minister about the matter. I am sure that he more than anyone constantly uses mobile phones. My concern is that phones have real health risks if overused, especially by young children. The Prime Minister replied that he would proceed "very carefully" and based on the "scientific evidence". In this case, it has become clear that the words "very carefully" translate into the Government doing nothing. The status quo remains, which is totally unacceptable. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has told me that it has not commissioned any research in the area. The only real research that I can find—the Stewart report—goes back four years and it recommends the precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technology. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the matter and see what the Prime Minister means about proceeding according the scientific evidence, when no such evidence is being gathered.
	The subject of abortion recently came to everyone's attention when Lord Steel of Aikwood, who introduced the original Bill, said that he now thought that we should look at it again. Many of us have been saying that as babies born at 22 weeks can be saved in special care units that help them to breathe independently, the law is an ass. The ultrasound pictures of an unborn child taken by Professor Stuart Campbell stunned us. The recent increase in the number of under-16-year-olds having abortions shocked us, so will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that we reconsider the matter when we come back in the autumn?
	Leigh creek badly needs dredging. It has been the lifeline of the port of Leigh for centuries, through its shipbuilding days to its current existence as a fishing and cockling port. The creek has been silting up for several years, with a shorter and shorter time between high tides when boats can leave and return. The course of the creek was changed, without permission, about 15 years ago, but as Leigh town council is still desperately grappling with the problem, will the Minister find out whether any money can be found to help with dredging the creek?
	Finally, it occurs to me that some Members may not yet have booked their summer holiday. I implore them to come to Southend, where we have the greatest number of hours of sunshine in the UK. If that does not attract them, Southend museum has a display of finds from the burial chamber of a Saxon king, uncovered in recent roadworks. The exhibition will be transferred to the Museum of London.
	I join all Members in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone a very happy summer.

Jim Dowd: It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I have been to Southend before; that is why I shall not be going there this summer. May I tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for whom I have a warm regard, that whenever he rises to his feet many Members feel that the clocks have stopped? The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is a doughty fighter for the armed forces. I associate him most readily with the Royal Air Force, for which I, too, have great feeling. My father served 15 years with that august institution, including all the second world war years. According to my mother, I was born in the back of a squadron leader's car at RAF Gutersloh, so I retain the highest regard for the service.
	I want to mention three items briefly. I realise that many Members want to speak so I shall cut back my remarks as much as possible. Furthermore, I do not want to antagonise the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas)—old and sad as he now is, compared with little and sad when he first came to this place.
	I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport on Tuesday, especially as it relates to future rail developments in London. Although much of the detail still has to be finalised, the Crossrail project is making progress. In my part of south-east London, we warmly welcomed the announcements about the east London line. As I have been campaigning for its southern extension for well over 30 years, I am delighted that the funding has at last been allocated and that work can proceed.
	Mr. Bob Kiley, the London transport commissioner said of the Secretary of State's announcement:
	"This groundbreaking agreement means that London, for the first time, has the opportunity to make long-term decisions on planning major capital projects without the fear that funding will be withdrawn in future years."
	That is good for all Londoners.
	The head of finance and planning at Transport for London said:
	"The Olympic projects we will now take forward include extending the East London Line (to Dalston Junction, West Croydon and Crystal Palace), expanding the DLR and new transit projects in East London and Greenwich."
	The Clapham junction extension will have to wait. I do not mind those projects being described in relation to the Olympic bid, although the case for them exists whether or not we make a bid for the 2012 Olympics. I have a reputation for being slightly more sceptical about the bid than other London Members or some of the other Members in the Chamber. The southern extension to West Croydon station involves the least cost, minimal engineering work and the highest cost-benefit for the investment, and we look forward to progress on that.
	Sadly, we received less encouraging news in my constituency yesterday, when the star ratings for the acute trusts were published and the rating for University hospital Lewisham went down from three stars to two stars. At first sight, that might seem a diminution of service, but when one examines the reasons, one finds that the trust achieved eight out of nine key targets, that it underachieved on only one of the nine key targets and that it significantly underachieved on none of the key targets.
	On clinical focus, four indicators were in band five, no indicators were in band one and the trust was placed in the middle band for performance. On patient focus, it had two indicators in band five, no indicators in band one and, again, was placed in the middle band for performance. On capacity and capability, it achieved two indicators in band five and no indicators in band one, putting it in the top band for performance. Paradoxically, although it lost a star—the press release states, "Hospital just misses out on top rating"—it missed out by one point, and that was for out-patient activity. The clinical services to people in the hospital have improved markedly.
	The trust was pursuing the foundation trust bid in wave 1a, but that has been put in some doubt by its losing one star. However, four other hospitals that had three stars lost one star, but they have trust status, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health must consider those matters. In Lewisham's case, I hope that he will examine not only the quantative assessment by the Healthcare Commission, but the underlying qualitative information to see that the hospital is making steady progress and that the bid should be allowed to continue.
	I have been a Lewisham resident for 53 years, and I have no doubt that University hospital Lewisham provides a better service to the people of Lewisham than it has ever done in its history. An extremely hard working and diligent chief executive and trust chair lead it, and it is a great resource for the people of south-east London. I hope that the service, which it provides so magnificently to my constituents, will continue to expand.
	I wanted to mention one other matter, but in view of the time and the need to get others in, I shall leave my remarks there.

Angela Browning: I want to raise one or two important issues in my constituency.
	For some time, my constituents have been telling me about their experiences and those of their relatives in our regional hospital, the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, Wonford. At the end of June, I received a letter from a constituent, who drew my attention to his experience as a post-operative patient after undergoing eye surgery:
	"To save money we were told we were shunted upstairs to Otter ward every Saturday by 2 o'clock and awakened even earlier than usual for a move on Monday at 7 am to be back on Parkerswell ward settled for the day shift to commence."
	When people have an in-patient stay, it is not uncommon for them to be moved, and we all understand the pressures at weekends, when hospitals try to discharge their patients and sometimes bring a couple of wards together.
	I was struck by the idea that a post-operative patient or patients should have been woken at an extraordinarily early hour in order to shunt them back on to the original ward in time for the day shift to come in. When one reads such stories, one asks oneself whom the service is for. Obviously, I wrote to the management of the hospital on behalf of my constituent, and I was astonished to receive a bland reply. It says:
	"It is therefore our standard practice to group patients on to appropriately staffed wards at weekends on occasions when it has not been possible to discharge them by the time that the ward closes. This is the only ward we have within the Trust which operates on a five day basis and our practice is consistent with practice across the NHS."
	My message to the Minister today is that, if that is standard practice and the way in which patients are treated—got up at an especially early hour for the convenience of the hospital process—that practice needs to be changed. I know that he will pass that on to the Department of Health. Even worse, I heard stories from people whose relatives were particularly delicate and ill when they seemed to be subject to so many unnecessary moves around the hospital.
	When the story of that patient appeared in my local newspaper, I received letters from others, including some very serious cases of people who were very ill. I shall just read an extract because I will not identify the constituents for obvious reasons. A young man wrote to me:
	"I would like to tell you about my mum, and this is more than I can bear, who was 69 and admitted to"
	the same hospital in
	"September 2003. She was shunted around five times in a four week period. With bravery and good humour my mum bore this . . . despite my pleas."
	She died in the first week of November. He continued:
	"Cancer patients it seems too are being shunted around the hospital in the last weeks of their lives."
	That is quite unacceptable.
	None of those things will appear in the star ratings that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) mentioned. No such figures appear in official reports from hospitals, but that is what is happening in them. It cannot be right that that sort of practice is allowed to continue. I am not asking the Government to create a new target for minimum moves, as part of the star-ratings system. To anyone with any fraction of compassion or common sense, that is an unacceptable practice. It does not put patients first; it does not recognise that hospitals exist to serve patients, not their regulations and processes. I hope that, by drawing the House's attention to that today, the Minister will assist me in getting that practice stopped.
	Another matter on health relates to NHS dentistry, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has raised already. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on 11 February this year, initiated by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), about dentistry in our part of Devon. At that time, I could get no NHS referrals for people living in the east Devon part of my constituency, but practices were still open to patients in the mid-Devon part, in Crediton, Cullompton and Tiverton. However, because practices were closed to them in Exeter and east Devon, I flagged up in that debate the fact that it would only be a matter of time before the mid-Devon practices were no longer able to accept NHS patients. That has happened: we now have no NHS practices available in mid-Devon.
	The reason I bring NHS dentistry to the House's attention today is that, in trying to find any surgery for one of my constituents this week, my caseworker contacted the trust to find out where the nearest NHS surgery is and was told that a practice in Barnstaple—on the north Devon coast, some 30 miles from Tiverton—is still accepting NHS patients. When my caseworker said, "Well, it's rather a long way to go—30 miles to visit the dentist", she was told, "Well, perhaps they would like the drive."
	Bearing in mind the opportunity of people travelling around the country in the forthcoming holiday period, I would agree that the journey by car from Tiverton to Barnstaple is most glorious. The scenery is fantastic, and there are many wayside inns and places to cool off and to enjoy the day, but that, frankly, is not quite what people want when they have a terrible toothache and are looking for a convenient NHS dentist. So I add my voice to those hon. Members who have called for NHS dentistry to be addressed by the Government. When we had our debate back in February, the local trust was waiting for the Government to make a decision on funding, and I urge them to get on with that as quickly as possible.
	Finally, I sat through the "Patience Strong" guide to the countryside from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, when she painted a very glossy, very attractive picture of the Government's strategy for rural areas, but I simply do not understand why small businesses in rural areas are being deprived of their enterprises agencies. In my constituency, the enterprise agencies are closing in Crediton and Tiverton. In Honiton, which has had a very successful enterprise agency, we understand that the contract to service that business community has been lost to the city of Plymouth, which is hardly rural and is at the other end of the county. So my final plea to the Minister is that, if rural communities and rural economies are important to the Government, at least keep those support services that have been seen to work, on which local businesses rely, and that deliver local services to local needs.

Alan Hurst: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his election victory and superb maiden speech. Mathematics was never my strong point at school, but a simple division of the time remaining and number of hon. Members wishing to speak suggests that I should be suitably brief.
	I wish to dwell on the position of the maternity services in the town of Braintree, especially as situated in the William Julian Courtauld hospital. The name Courtauld may be familiar to hon. Members because it was the famous textile firm founded in Bocking, which is adjacent to Braintree. For many years, it had mills in both Bocking and Halstead and was a major employer of labour. The specific community hospital that I mention was endowed by William Julian Courtauld after the first world war and subscribed to by the working people of Braintree for the benefit of the town.
	The hospital has provided superb personal maternity services to the mothers of Braintree for many years, although we saw a shadow of things to come in 1997 when the then health authority proposed to close down all hospital services in the town of Braintree and, not being content with that, also those in the town of Maldon. There was a tremendous local campaign against that. The consultation was called "Taking the Initiative", but hon. Members can well imagine that local people had another expression for it, which went even further than "Taking Liberties". The campaign against the closures in 1997 and 1998 was successful, so the William Julian Courtauld hospital retained its maternity service, albeit somewhat diminished, because although the service had been general practitioner-led, it was reduced to being midwife-led. Nevertheless, the service remained in place and continued to serve the people of the town.
	Last autumn, the care trust that now administers the service announced that the hospital was closing for a short time owing to sickness of staff and pregnancy among the midwives. That was understandable and I made no fuss when it took place; midwives of course have the same right to become pregnant as everyone else. The hospital reopened on a most peculiar basis. It would be almost impossible to make this story up, so hon. Members must take my word for it that what I am about to say is true.
	The maternity hospital opened on the basis of operating between 9 o'clock in the morning and 5   o'clock in the evening, Monday to Friday only. I do not think that we have reached a stage at which the time when babies arrive may be programmed more definitely than was historically the case—mothers and fathers in the Chamber will recall that a more common time for a baby's arrival is the early hours of the morning—so hon. Members will understand the difficulty that that has caused. If it is anticipated that a baby will be born outside the nine-to-five period, it is possible for people to contact a midwife, who will get the key and let them into the hospital.
	Hon. Members can well imagine what happened as a result of the change. A mother gave birth to a baby in the hospital car park, and the town is in uproar about what has happened. Meetings and demonstrations have been held, and there was a substantial march through the town of Braintree last Saturday. It largely consisted of mothers with young children, although a few people of more mature years were present, including me as the local Member of Parliament. A descendent of the founder of the hospital, Julian Courtauld, was also there. We spoke at the end of the march, and there is a universal view in the town that the full service should be restored.
	It is possible that we are making progress, and I am raising the matter today because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey the state of affairs to the Secretary of State for Health. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade the care trust not to be quite so insulting to the mothers and children of Braintree.
	There is a light to the case, even by its own logic. The number of babies born in the hospital rose to 22 at the end of last month. That is within the target of the health trust for the number of babies it wants to be born to justify a 24-hour service. The difficulty is, of course, that if it does not open on a 24-hour basis, fewer mothers go there and it is difficult to reach the target set.
	I fully understand that those who have complications or potentially difficult pregnancies will go to the general hospital in Chelmsford, which can offer more specialised services. Births at the William Julian Courtauld hospital are expected to be—I say this as a mere man—of the more straightforward kind. However, the institution has been popular and has served the town well for the best part of 75 years. I hope that it continues and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will intervene in such a way as he thinks fit.

Bob Spink: I represent a beautiful part of the country, set on the Thames, populated by good and self-reliant people who are proud to be British and who cherish our wonderful heritage. Hadleigh, for instance, has an historic castle and the ancient St. James's church, but it needs to regain its village atmosphere. Thundersley, Benfleet and Canvey Island are delightful communities. More than anything, Castle Point needs to conserve and improve its environment and amenities, which means stopping the overdevelopment.
	A year ago, Conservatives took control of Castle Point borough council from Labour. The results are starting to shine through. An Audit Commission report was produced after just eight months of Conservative administration. Of course, things do not change immediately or without a lot of effort. In fact, the Prime Minister still blames the old Conservative Government for his failure to deliver on public services, congestion and antisocial behaviour—I could go on—after eight years in power.
	The Audit Commission's report sets out an optimistic picture of
	"the beginning of the journey".
	It says:
	"Political leadership within the Council was previously weak."
	That was the old Labour leadership. It continues:
	"The current leader"—
	the new Conservative leader—
	"demonstrates a determination to provide clear political direction."
	The Audit Commission is right to highlight the problems that still need to be resolved. It is also right to point to the positive early action taken by councillors. For instance, it states that the new Conservative council has
	"agreed a balanced budget . . . directed additional resources to priority areas . . . recognised the need for alternative forms of service provision",
	and notes:
	"Partners are positive about working with the Council".
	In addition, the council has closed loss-making facilities, outsourced services and is still in the process of radical change to drive up the standard of services for the public and the value of the money that it gives to the public. I warmly congratulate the councillors on their efforts.
	We must be patient, however. Rome was not built in a day, but the seeds of success are coming through. They were sown by the council's leader, Pam Challis, and her excellent team of councillors. In particular, I thank Jeffrey Stanley, who guided the team financially. He delivered the balanced budget and kept the council tax rise in Castle Point this year to below 3 per cent., a remarkable achievement. He held firm on spending throughout the council's departments to force the necessary reforms and give value for money. Jeff Stanley did a great service to the people of Castle Point.
	I must also mention the chief executive, Barry Rollinson, and his team of officers and staff, who are professional, dedicated and hard-working. They deserve the community's thanks and congratulations and its encouragement to continue down the right road of reform so that we bring back pride in Castle Point.
	One major local problem is that of disabled facilities grants to enable disabled people to live in decent circumstances in their homes. Castle Point has estimated that this year it needs £600,000 to cover the demand for those grants, and that does not include any new services likely to be recommended by occupational therapists. The Government made only £90,000 available to the council, which has topped up the figure to £150,000, but that is still only a quarter of what is needed—it will probably turn out to be even less than that as the new demand becomes known. That is tragic for disabled people unable to get the simple aids and adaptations that they so desperately need.
	This is not a political matter; I seek to score no political points. I do not criticise the county council, the Government or indeed the borough council. I simply and sincerely ask the Minister to look at the case of Castle Point and to write to me or meet me so that we can start to find a solution to the problem. In all decency we must do that for the vulnerable people whom we represent and who depend on us. I thank the borough council's director of health and housing, Alan Longford, and County Councillor Bill Dick, who are working hard to resolve the problem for the community.
	Still on local issues, I put on record yet again the need to find a way to give Canvey Island its third access road, which must be from Northwick road. Just a few days ago, Canvey Island was completely blocked off again because of a tragic accident. It came to a standstill, and so did much of the mainland. The environmental damage caused by congestion every day is incalculable. I congratulate the local newspapers, the Yellow Advertiser and the Evening Echo, on their campaign to try to improve matters. As I hold up a copy of the latter, hon. Members can see that it calls our traffic problems "chaos". I know that County Councillor Ray Howard has fought for years to improve matters locally, and I am happy to join him and his team in that fight.
	Of course, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policy to increase the house-building target in Castle Point from 2,400 to 4,000 without giving any infrastructure help whatever will simply exacerbate the problem. It is complete nonsense, and we must fight every single inappropriate building application because more building without the infrastructure simply adds to our problems.
	I want to raise a couple of police issues. I congratulate the divisional commander, John Mauger, his officers and staff on their efforts over the last year. They have had a tough time, but they are now getting on top of local antisocial behaviour, street crime and youth nuisance. They have improved those matters. There is still a lot to be done, of course, but things are moving in the right direction, and that is because of a sound strategy, good management of that strategy and excellent officers on the ground implementing it.
	Nationally, the police need help. They are bogged down with bureaucracy. It takes three and a half hours to arrest someone, which stops the police responding quickly, investigating earlier crimes and walking the streets to deter further crimes. One solution must be improved IT. We need minimum, not maximum, administrative input from the police. Names, addresses and dates of birth must be entered once into a palm-top at the scene or in the police car, not many times on several forms back at the station. The police must co-operate with the Crown Prosecution Service to find ways of becoming more effective. We need mobile data units in police cars, so that officers can be linked to each electronically and can communicate with each other, speeding up their processing of crime and keeping them on the streets.
	We need common sense, and we need to roll out IT solutions, hardware and system simplifications. That could save up to 25 per cent. of police time, which would mean 25 per cent. more police officers on the street. That is what the public want; indeed, it is what they deserve. By the way, it is also what the police themselves deserve because they are very hard-pressed, dedicated and professional, and I congratulate them again on their work locally.
	I have spoken consistently on the European Union over the years. Briefly, I believe that we have to get out of the common fisheries policy, as I have said many times. We must now get out of the common agricultural policy, which ceased to be useful years ago. It is expensive, and it delivers problems, not solutions, to our farmers and consumers. It is increasingly inappropriate in an expanded Europe, and it damages the developing world, much to the shame of the whole of Europe. We also need to bring international development finance back under our own control. Bilateral project-based aid is much more effective and delivers better and more sustainable solutions than multilateral aid channelled through Europe.
	I congratulate UK Independence party MEPs on using their position to inform the British public about the waste, excesses, corruption and stupidity of European institutions. The more the British people know about the EU, the less they like it. The EU is being driven hard towards a single federal state; our destiny is not to be consumed by that state. We must retain our sovereignty, retain the pound, stay out of the EU constitution, get out of the CFP and the CAP, bring back our international development funding to this country, and return to the simple trading relationship and to rational co-operation with Europe where that is in Britain's interests. That is what the people of this country voted for and to give them less is to betray them.

Brian Iddon: This afternoon, I shall make a serious contribution on the subject of prostitution. Last Friday, the Government published an important consultation document, "Paying the Price", which I welcome strongly. Existing laws on prostitution date back more than 50 years and have, in my opinion, long been in need of reform. In one small part of my constituency we have had a serious problem with prostitution. I do not in any way condone prostitution, but as a Member of Parliament I have had to think seriously about it.
	The traditional red-light district of Bolton is a small light industrial estate covering far less than a square mile, which is connected to the road network, surrounded by car parks and close to the town centre night life. As heavy engineering industry moved out, light industry moved in and the business men began to complain about the prostitutes, who were operating from 3 o'clock in the afternoon rather than from the early evening onward, which led to women walking through the area and business men visiting it to be harassed.
	Because of the number of complaints, the police had to do something. They conducted a great deal of activity in the area, but the result was to decant the problem across the main Bury-Bolton road and into a pleasant residential area, where the problems escalated. Prostitution is connected with drugs—we have had yardies in the area—but the reason that I have had to take a keen interest in the situation is that in 18 months there have been 14 suspicious deaths in that small area. Two prostitutes, Carly Bateman and Danielle Moorcroft, aged 17 and 21 respectively, were recently murdered there; Danielle was five months pregnant at the time of her death. There have also been vicious attacks and drug overdoses. The area is surrounded by Bolton community college and the halls of residence for Bolton institute of higher education—now a university—and students are badly harassed. There were real problems, so the police started to be active in the residential area, as a result of which the prostitutes are now spread over a much wider area.
	However, there is good news: we in Bolton now have a prostitution forum, which was established under the chairmanship of Councillor Frank White. It offers a strategic approach to managing prostitution back into the traditional area—the light industrial estate. No one lives there, so apart from business men in the day time, no one has a serious problem with prostitutes operating in the area. Of course Bolton council, the police and the health authority are taking an holistic approach: they are trying to get all the prostitutes off the game, off drugs and into jobs, and to look after their health. I congratulate the Bolton prostitution forum on its mature approach to a difficult problem.
	The police have offered a curfew time that is now well known in Bolton: prostitutes can operate in the area from 7 o'clock in the evening until 6 o'clock in the morning, and if they operate outside the area police will harass them. There are closed circuit television cameras in the area to keep the women safe, and during the curfew period the police keep an eye on what is going on. If the prostitutes do not conform to the curfew or if they operate outside the area, antisocial behaviour orders will be used. I am pleased to say that ASBOs have already been issued against two prostitutes, who are now banned from operating in Bolton. Just this evening, in the Bolton Evening News, the headline is, "Man banned from the red light zone". An ASBO has been applied to a man who is considered to be an extreme danger to prostitutes. He has become the first Bolton man to be banned, using an ASBO, from the red light area.
	In addition to the consultation document that was offered last Friday, I hope that we may have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can make far more serious contributions to this important subject than I can make this afternoon.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). His speech is a tribute to the real contribution that he will make in this place. I pay tribute also to his predecessor, Terry Davis, who will make a real contribution in Europe.
	I shall start with Iraq. In normal times, I think that we would be focusing on the future of that country. We would be looking at the constitutional path set out in United Nations Security Council resolution 1546. We would be concerned about the security situation, which is condemned in that resolution. It restates the obligations of states such as Syria and others to prevent terrorism. It is not "normal times" because an election is pending in the United States and there may be one in this country next year.
	I could be sadly deluded that there are normal times in politics. Perhaps political debate and an objective consideration of the facts are mutually exclusive. There was certainly something wrong with our intelligence in Iraq. At first glance that is surprising when it was accurate in relation to Libya and the A.Q. Khan network. That is what Lord Butler and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and her colleagues inquired into. To suggest somehow that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was to blame for the intelligence failure, or the reading of intelligence, flies in the face of the facts.
	The world community signed up to resolution 1441 in November 2002. Iraq was in material breach of its obligations because it had not completely disarmed. That was paragraph 1 of that resolution. In terms of the current debate, one could be misled into thinking that the concern at that time and subsequently was about whether there needed to be disarmament. It was not, it was about how to achieve that particular aim—should we permit the inspectors to stay longer. At page 112 of his recent book, Dr. Blix states:
	"Looking at the material before us as a lawyer, I could not exclude the possibility that the Iraqis had destroyed both weapons and documents and that little or nothing was left. My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it."
	Even our eminent UK expert, Dr. Kelly, was of a similar view. For example, he offered his quite sophisticated knowledge to Mr. Gilligan of the BBC. It is set out in paragraphs 230 and 231 of Lord Hutton's report. Dr. Kelly also made an important comment to Mr. Gilligan when he said
	"there has been proliferation—not in terms of people walking across the Iraqi border with 20 shells, but supply chain knowledge—plans."
	That is important in terms of the threat that Iraq posed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gilligan did not report what Dr. Kelly actually told him.
	That leads to a few reflections about the media. I do not believe that there was a golden age of media objectivity. I believe, however, that we are blessed with a media whose range and depth must be the envy of other countries. However, there is a deep culture of suspicion about politicians and their motives in the media. Ian Hargreaves and John Lloyd, in their recent books, have written about the corrosive effects of this on the body politic. As a political class, we do not always help ourselves. Accusations of bad faith or, worse, deceit, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are so casually and regularly made by some journalists and leader writers, and I find that deeply worrying. I utterly reject such accusations. In fact, I find them a personal affront.
	One important issue that we should be debating is the basis on which there should be armed intervention where we have rogue or failed states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an important speech on this earlier this year. Rhetorically, he said:
	"The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to enforce it."
	In 2001, the international commission that the Canadian Government had established reported on criteria of legitimacy for intervention. It identified five. These were seriousness, right intention, last resort, proportionality and the balance of consequences. We should debate the issue because, in the light of Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Sudan we need clear guidance on what the international community can do.
	Briefly, the inadequacies of the coroner system were brought home to me earlier this year by a case in my constituency. There was no practical way in which an adverse finding by the coroner could be reviewed at the instigation of the people who were criticised. A fundamental Home Office review chaired by Tom Luce was published in 2003. Although the system has been reviewed a number of times over the last century, nothing has been done. That system is not transparent or joined-up, and does not meet families' emotional or practical needs. Change is needed, and I urge the Government to implement the review.
	Finally, I introduced the Company Directors (Health and Safety) Bill last year. The Government believe that voluntary action is the way forward, but on the basis of the published research, I believe that more needs to be done.

Julia Drown: I should like to report on some concerns raised by my constituents and provide feedback on recent Government initiatives.
	One of the most important recent announcements was the comprehensive spending review, and my constituents will certainly welcome the investments in education and health. An intermediate treatment centre will provide another 100 beds by next year, which is much appreciated by the people of Swindon. I am pleased that we have significantly reduced NHS waiting times, and that NHS dentistry has been restored in Swindon after the complete lack of such a service under the previous Government. However, there are concerns about waiting times in audiology and secondary mental health services, demonstrating that that additional investment is very much needed.
	I have a huge postbag of letters from people who, while recognising that the Government have made a great contribution to international aid, urge them to do even more. I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing a deadline for meeting the target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on international aid, which will help to save millions of lives. The additional money to tackle crime is welcome, and I was pleased to learn today of crime figures showing that Wiltshire is the second safest county in the country. Residents appreciate their improved quality of life, and thanks are due to the police, the local community, the council and magistrates, who have made a concerted effort to tackle crime. Street wardens have had a huge impact on the Parks, Walcot and Central wards in my constituency, where they act as the eyes and ears of the community, take up issues of concern and get things done. Again, that initiative is thanks to the investment of the Labour Government.
	We are not complacent, however. More should be done on antisocial behaviour, particularly prostitution, which has been successfully tackled in Central ward by the community, together with the council and local police. That could not have been done without antisocial behaviour orders and Government legislation making kerb crawling an arrestable offence. An antisocial behaviour order was recently imposed on a kerb crawler in Swindon to keep them out of the area. I am sad to record the death of Matt McCue, one of the people who led that community work, but the community has vowed to remember him and is determined to continue his work. The quality of life has improved significantly in Central ward and I know that with the additional powers and those that are being consulted on, we will be able to do even more.
	We should not allow tolerance zones to be introduced. When I spoke to prostitutes, they said that tolerance zones are set up on industrial estates, for example, and they are too frightened to use those places. Introducing tolerance zones will lead to official prostitution and unofficial prostitution as well. Following the example of the Swedish Government, we should say that in our society no one should pay for sex. Those who do so fuel the antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution. We should try to minimise the problems in our society that result from prostitution.
	I continue to get in my postbag tragic letters from people who have suffered in road accidents, who have family members who have suffered in road accidents or who have lost family members in such accidents. We need to do more to tackle speeding. The matter has already been raised in the debate. There is still a belief that it is acceptable to speed, and that speed cameras are naughty wicked things set up by Government, rather than an attempt to reduce road deaths and injuries. But the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they do just that. Any MP who has to face somebody who has lost a family member in a road accident must emphasise that speeding is a major issue, and we need to make it as unacceptable as drink driving has become. I am working to support 20 mph zones around our schools, as I believe that is important.
	Other hon. Members have spoken about maternity services, a topic that we need to draw to the Government's attention. Government policy is designed to extend choice in maternity services, but as we have heard from a number of hon. Members, it seems that choice is being reduced. In my constituency some Swindon women choose to use a midwife-led unit that is just outside the constituency in Malmesbury. That is being threatened with closure. The primary care trust there will make a decision on Tuesday.The maternity unit is extremely popular and is the only midwife-led unit available to Swindon women. It seems stupid to close it when it could be better used. Many people in my constituency do not know about it. If it were well used, it could be as economical as some of the other services or, as the evidence from elsewhere suggests, more economical.
	I chair the maternity group here in Parliament, so I pick up a number of issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) has tabled an early-day motion about the home birth service being withdrawn in Peterborough. It is at a foundation trust, which is supposed to respond to local communities and provide more choice, yet a midwife there has been suspended for attending a home birth. That is strange. Women have a right to have a home birth and midwives have a duty to attend home births, so the circle is not being squared. Trusts seem to have no duty to provide the necessary midwives. If we are keen to promote choice in maternity services, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to sort the matter out. Home births on average take up less midwife time than other births, so they should clearly be supported, as recent National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines show.
	Finally, I should like to mention the crisis in Darfur. A number of hon. Members recently visited Sudan and saw the catastrophe. They recognised the efforts made by the Government, who are already the largest donor and have promised more money. Those hon. Members also urge our constituents to dig in their pockets and give money to the emergency appeal, because they have seen people who they know will be dead by now. They have seen the hunger, the lack of shelter and so on, and they urge the Government to do more.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will raise those issues with the relevant Departments. I appreciate the opportunity to draw them to the attention of the House on behalf of my constituents.

Rudi Vis: I have raised the case of Cyprus on many occasions, and I had hoped that by now it would be resolved amicably. As that is not the case, however, I return to it today. Let me remind the House that Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974—more than 30 years ago—thereby violating every conceivable international norm. Two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots fled without their possessions, 5,000 were killed, and more than 1,000 are still missing. Countless UN resolutions, debates and efforts to find a solution have been thwarted by Turkey, by the putative leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash and, more recently, by Mr. Talat.
	The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have upheld every case against Turkey, but it has bluntly refused to comply. The Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Kofi Annan, has done his best to assist, but major failings in the advice given to him have turned the clock backwards, not forwards.
	A referendum on creating a united Cyprus was held on 24 April this year. The result in the occupied part was a yes vote, with two to one in favour. One should bear in mind that there are now more Turkish settlers—some 120,000—in the occupied territory than Turkish Cypriots, and that most Turkish settlers are distinctly disliked by Turkish Cypriots.
	There are also some 35,000 Turkish troops in this small occupied territory. It was the Turks who voted yes; many Turkish Cypriots voted no. The vote in the Republic of Cyprus was a resounding no, with 76 per cent. of Greek Cypriots voting against Annan plan V. One would have thought that in any referendum 76 per cent. of people cannot all be wrong, but that is how the world reacted. The condemnation of the Greek Cypriots and of President Tassos Papadopoulos was nearly unanimous. At the same time, the Turkish Cypriots were acclaimed as friends of democracy and human rights, and as the only people really in favour of a united Cyprus. As I said, it was the Turkish settlers who voted yes. Three days ago, we received three Greek Cypriot mayors in exile. They are from the three most densely populated areas in the occupied territory—Famagusta, Morphou and Kyrenia. Their research, particularly in Kyrenia, suggests that the vast majority of Turkish Cypriots voted no.
	Why did Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots vote no despite 30 years of division and a strong desire to unify? Annan plan I was put to political decision makers as the most balanced plan ever devised. Then, it was changed in favour of Turkey, and re-presented as Annan II. Again, that was described as the most balanced plan ever and changed in favour of Turkey, becoming Annan III. Annan III was of course presented as the most balanced plan ever devised, but major changes were made in favour of Turkey between Annan IV and Annan V, even giving Turkish troops the right to stay in Cyprus in perpetuity, albeit with their number reduced over the decades to 650.
	Greek and Turkish Cypriots feel, rightly, that security issues have not been thought through; that human rights are not negotiable; that implementation of Annan V will take decades; that property rights have almost been forgotten; that the fate of the missing should receive attention; and that those in enclaves and everyone else should have freedom of movement. Those are all matters that we take for granted in the UK and, I should have thought, in the EU. After all, Cyprus is a full member of the EU.
	The real problem with Annan V was that it had little to do with Cyprus. It was an attempt to push for a yes vote on both sides, regardless, so that EU accession negotiations with Turkey could commence in December 2004. When the full truth comes out, the world will change its mind and the EU will want Turkey to negotiate fairly before contemplating allowing it to commence accession negotiations. It will not be possible to have another vote on Annan V. The best that could happen is for all Cypriots to come together to create a solution and put it to the UN. For once, Cyprus could do without foreign intervention, which has served only to deepen divisions and make it more difficult to find a lasting solution of a united and free island.
	I say to Turkey and others that Cyprus is a full member of the EU and now has the power of veto over accession. That may assist in finding a fair solution.

Brian White: I want to raise three brief issues, but, first, I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne).
	I stress to hon. Members who spoke about British Telecom telephones that the all-party group held a meeting with BT in which those who spoke today were conspicuous by their absence. Had they been present, they would have heard facts about the 40,000 loss-making phones and know that local authorities have an effective veto over whether they go. They would have realised that innovative councils such as Bolton had found a way of dealing with some of those BT pay phones.
	I read with interest early-day motion 1496, which is about unscrupulous property developers from Bromsgrove, who divided up fields and offered plots for sale. A European land sales partnership is doing something similar in a lovely village called Bow Brickell in my constituency. It is offering a field for future homes and taking money now with a promise of a home in the future. The person responsible has bought a field for £90,000 and stands to make £3 million. There is little chance of the field getting planning permission, but the developer's information advances the growth of Milton Keynes as an inducement. As well as stressing the points made in early-day motion 1496, I emphasise to the Deputy Leader of the House that someone who has been barred as a company director is running the scheme and gets round the law by forming a partnership. I ask my hon. Friend to take up with the Department of Trade and Industry not only closing the loophole that allow scams such as those in Bromsgrove and Milton Keynes to occur, but extending the bars on directorships to partnerships.
	The second issue echoes a matter that my neighbour, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised. Choice is the in word, and yesterday the Public Administration Committee held a seminar to examine how choice works. One example was the direct payment scheme. There is a scheme in my constituency whereby disabled people can live as normal a life as possible. The council provides flats and Scope provides adaptations. The flats are spread over a normal estate, but treated as one unit. The Commission for Social Care Inspection has inspected them for years. However, under current regulations, they have to be treated as a care home. The warden is expected to go into each flat to inspect fridges, beds and the state of the flats. My house would not pass the test in those regulations, and I am sure that that applies to all hon. Members.
	People who have lived in the flats for 20 years stand to lose their homes. That is absurd. Nobody believes that it is right, but because they do not fit the regulations neatly, the flats are being treated in the way that I described. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take account of two issues: first, if we are serious about choice, inspection regimes and their targets should be designed to deal with diversity and choice; and, secondly, when such absurdities and red tape arise, we should use our regulatory reform procedure—no Tory Members turn up for that, but that is another story—to remedy them as quickly as possible.
	A constituent, Colin Tripp, was injured at work and won compensation after a long battle. He thought that it was great until he began to receive benefits and his pension. The compensation is treated as income, not a lump sum. Consequently, the total amount that he receives in benefits and pension is considerably less than it would have been. The Department for Work and Pensions claims that it is taking nothing away from the compensation. There are genuine problems with that. Time prevents me from going into detail, but I ask my hon. Friend to pass on the case to the Department for Work and Pensions. There are many such anomalies in the benefits system, which is complex. Interaction between payments causes problems and although we have done much through the tax credit system, several anomalies still need to be examined.

Keith Vaz: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his wonderful maiden speech and on his election. I did not campaign for him—perhaps that is one reason he did so well—because I was occupied, with the Deputy Leader of the House, in another part of the midlands.
	I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) on another excellent speech. She spent many years on the Front Bench, but we have not heard her speak from the Back Benches on education, which is her passion. She will be greatly missed when she retires from the House next year; she is truly a great parliamentarian.
	I have some holiday homework for three Ministers, in the form of three quick questions, which I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on. My first question is to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In view of the excellent statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, in which he and the commission came out firmly against the proposal for a single equality commission, will the Secretary of State look again at the proposals? They do not have the support of the black and ethnic minority community in the United Kingdom, because there has not been sufficient consultation on them. It is not that the communities and I are against the idea of a single commission; it is that there is no guarantee that the race issue will be given the prominence it deserves. We are not against a single equality Act, because it is important to bring together the necessary legislation. However, if we abolish the CRE, given all the work it has done over the past 30 or so years, it will be essential that the race dimension is properly represented in the new organisation. The summer recess will give the Secretary of State, my neighbour in Leicester, the time to look at what the chairman of the CRE has said, at what the 1990 Trust has said, and at what hon. Members have said on this issue, and to try to refashion the programme.
	My second question is to the Attorney-General. Over the summer, will he redouble his efforts to deal with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? We hear that progress has been made, and five of the original nine detainees have been released. It is vital, however, that we continue to put pressure on the American Government, because it is wrong that British people should be held in Guantanamo Bay without charge or the possibility of a fair trial. Will the Attorney-General please press the initiative on this issue that he began more than a year ago?
	The final bit of homework is for the Minister for Local and Regional Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Will he hold a proper investigation into the way in which Leicester city council is being run by the Liberal-led coalition, which is a complete disgrace? If the Leicester, South by-election had been a referendum on the record of the council, the excellent Labour candidate would have won hands down. The fact is that council tax has been put up by 8 per cent., and £2 million has been cut from the voluntary sector budget. Vital projects such as the St. Gabriel's community centre, the Humberstone park café—about which I shall present a petition at the end of this debate—and the Morton, Northfield and Tailby tenants association are being cut by the Liberal council, which came to power claiming that it would represent the views of local people. All it has done is cut local services, causing misery and hardship to the 250,000 citizens of Leicester. May we please have a proper investigation into what it is doing? The claim that it made when it came to power that there was a £10 million black hole left by the previous Labour administration was absolute rubbish. It is important that the Liberal Democrats should be exposed for what they are doing in Leicester, and I hope that an investigation will be instituted over the summer months.

Kevan Jones: I, too, add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his maiden speech. I played a small part in his campaign—the blisters on my feet have now healed—but I felt that it was well worth while when I listened to a very able new Member make a very good speech.
	I wish to raise an issue that affects my constituency and those of many other hon. Members—attacks on NHS staff, and on ambulance personnel in particular. Those men and women are vital to the health service, and we rely on them at times when we fall ill or have accidents.
	In the north-east, there has been an increase in the number of attacks on ambulance drivers and paramedics: from May last year to May this year, some 163 individuals were assaulted, and 58 of those assaults resulted in physical injuries. In addition, in a recent survey of 200,000 NHS staff, one in six reported that they had been physically abused in some way while carrying out their duties. I must congratulate Unison on its work in the north-east, and its branch secretary in County Durham, Ray McDermott, on highlighting appalling acts of physical violence against his members. A recent Unison survey found that some 40 per cent. of paramedics and ambulance drivers had been attacked. Obviously, those figures do not include the verbal abuse that they and hospital accident and emergency staff must put up with on a daily basis.
	Many of those attacks are by people who are intoxicated, and they lead to some horrendous injuries. One north-east ambulance driver had his jaw broken and was off work for eight weeks. The sad thing was that the offender was fined only £50. Another case involved a female member of the ambulance service who was beaten up so badly that she was unable to work for two years. The perpetrator got a measly 120 hours' community service. That cannot be right. We rely on those people for protection: they are vital key workers in our health service. If they are attacked by members of the public, the courts should come down heavily on the individuals responsible.
	I have mentioned Unison raising awareness of such attacks, and I also want to pay tribute to the Evening Chronicle and The Journal in Newcastle, which have highlighted the appalling cases in the north-east. The onus is on us to ensure that those cases get maximum publicity, and to call for the toughest measures against those who attack ambulance staff. I agree with the comment of the chief executive of the Commission for Health Improvement:
	"More needs to be done to ensure NHS staff can go about their work without the fear of being attacked."
	I know that time is short, but I want to raise two other issues, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Sadly, I have never been to Southend, so I must take him up on his offer one day to visit his constituency. He raised the issue of post office closures. Let me give him a good news story on post office closures. In the village of Craghead, in my constituency, which lost its post office six months ago, the local community partnership has opened up its own post office in the village hall, with support from Government. That shows that if local people get together, they can provide local services, such as post office services, in a rural village. If he wants any details of that, I will pass them on to him.
	Finally, I welcome the news today that the Government are going ahead with the referendum in the north-east for a regional assembly. I have campaigned for that, with other Members, for a long time. It would give the north-east a voice that it has not had for far too long. It would also lead to the reorganisation of local government in County Durham, which is long overdue. The current two-tier system does not work. In November, I hope that the people of Durham vote for a single unitary county council and that we get away from the ping-pong between the districts and the county, which leads to some of the most inefficient delivery of public services that I have seen anywhere. That will give Durham a vibrancy that it needs, it will give a focus to local service delivery, and it will give County Durham a strong local government voice.
	The new county council, however, must be different from the one that we have at the moment, which, I understand, has only four women councillors, all of whom are from my constituency. Clearly, the new county council needs to represent modern-day county Durham and be something of which we can be proud, not just for its service delivery but for championing a great county. On that point, I will conclude. I wish all hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the best for the summer recess.

Oliver Heald: As always on these occasions, we have had an excellent debate, with hon. Members from all parties showing their concern about local issues but also raising a range of national issues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) raised the important issue of attacks on ambulance drivers and those who work in the health service. Such attacks are appalling, and it is right that they should be highlighted. The Opposition support all efforts to ensure that such attacks stop and that people who commit them are treated firmly.
	The problem is not just in the health service. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is running a major campaign about attacks on shop workers. I recently sent a petition from my constituency to No. 10 Downing street. I hope that the issue will also be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
	We heard an excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne)—a constituency that we have all come to know. Although we perhaps do not all love it as much as the hon. Gentleman, we feel that we know it well. He paid a proper tribute to his predecessors, including Terry Davis, who was well respected in the House over many years. The hon. Gentleman is proud of his constituency—proud that it built Spitfires in the war—and it has some wonderful people. It is clear that he will represent them with the same power and effect as his predecessors. That is a strong tradition.
	Is the Deputy Leader of the House able to give any more information about Equitable Life, which I mentioned during business questions? The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, wishes to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in her inquiry into Equitable Life. A written statement was produced later in the day, which said that her jurisdiction would be extended, but it did not say when the order would be made. Clearly, this is a matter of urgency. It affects hundreds of thousands of people who are distressed and concerned. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us anything more about that.
	There have been some great themes in the debate. We have discussed defence and the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was concerned about the effect of the cuts on the Defence Logistics Organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has great knowledge of the RAF, was concerned about the deep cuts of 7,500 in the RAF, which he described as deeply irresponsible. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) was unhappy at the potential loss of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was concerned about the Queen's Lancashire Regiment—one of the oldest, if not the oldest, regiments in the country. Concern was also expressed that the Typhoon tranche 2 order should be placed and that there might be a capability gap if we get rid of a lot of our aeroplanes before the Typhoons are in place.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said—the best point that he made, I thought—that he wanted further Government commitments over Lord Lloyd's inquiry. All those points add up to the requirement for a debate, so I ask the Deputy Leader of the House, as I asked the Leader in business questions, for a full-day debate in Government time when we come back on defence and the White Paper.
	Another theme of today's debate has been crime and antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in his unique way, described the brass-taking of the Prime Minister and said that he had never heard anything like it when the Prime Minister talked about crime and antisocial behaviour. Given that there has been a 37 per cent. rise in violent crime in London, for example, one can understand my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the Yellow Advertiser and its campaign for extra feet on the beat. He mentioned the editor, Graeme Allen, and the reporter, Luke Walsh. I am sure that we would all wish to pay tribute to pioneering journalists who stand up for law and order issues.
	The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) suggested that we should evict antisocial tenants and he said that antisocial behaviour orders were a huge success because 65 per cent. of them were not breached. I was tempted to ask him about the other 35 per cent. When one thinks how much effort it takes to get an ASBO and how bad someone has to be to be the subject of one, it is a poor statistic that 35 per cent. are breached.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) mentioned the concern of the Rev. Bob Love about happy hours and binge drinking in his constituency. He gave us the background of the nightclub capacity that they have there. He also said that he went out with the late night police. I too have done that and on the last occasion I was sitting in the back of the car while the officer was asking a young gentleman to help him with his inquiries. After a few minutes, the youngster asked, "And who's he?" The officer said, "Well, that's the Member of Parliament." The young fellow replied, "You've got a sauce—nicking the MP!" I am sure that we are all very concerned about antisocial behaviour, but I have always believed that feet on the beat are the answer. Our pledge is to put 40,000 extra real police officers on the beat. When the Labour party matches that, we will see some improvements in law and order.
	Health was another theme of the debate. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) was very concerned by the proposed closure of the A and E department at St. Helier hospital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd)—a somewhat unusual alliance—were both concerned about the operation of the NHS ratings system. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out that process is often put ahead of patients and she described how some regional hospitals operate. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was worried about the Courtauld hospital maternity unit. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) was also worried about the closure of a maternity unit.
	All those points come together to show that it is only when our national health service is controlled and run locally and the professionals are put in charge that we will achieve the improvements that we would all like to see. I remember being a junior health spokesman and travelling around Europe with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). We visited a German hospital and looked around a ward that was spotlessly clean. We asked the Herr Professor Doktor who was in charge why it was so clean and he said, "Why wouldn't it be?" We asked whether the cleaning was done by private contractors, and he said that it was. I asked him why they did such a good job, and he said, "Well, if it wasn't clean, we wouldn't pay." He was able, as the person in charge of the ward, to say that he would not pay if the job was not done well enough. We need to reach the point where the people in charge of wards in our hospitals can make a difference on issues such as cleanliness. That is how we will tackle the problems of MRSA and other hospital infections, which have increased so rapidly lately. It is an issue of management, and it needs tackling now.
	A range of community issues was mentioned. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) were both concerned about the closure of post offices. The closure of BT telephone boxes was also raised, which is an important issue for isolated communities and in towns with communities where people do not all have mobile phones. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) supported BT. He said that there was a proper procedure and that if we had gone to the meetings of the committee, everything would have been all right. However, I did not sense that that was the mood of the House and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to answer that point.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised points about the commitment to a parcels service. We heard about mobile phone masts, about helping families with Sure Start and about mental health advocates. It was a really good debate of its type.
	Another strong theme was red tape and bureaucracy. In a marvellous speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) highlighted the bureaucracy of the New Opportunities Fund, where people have to spend 10 per cent. of the money they hope to receive before they can realise their grant. He spoke about the difficulties experienced by a multiple sclerosis centre and a garden centre in his constituency due to pettifogging regulations. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire told us about a theatre that was being closed due to petty bureaucracy.
	Police red tape, bureaucracy and the need for IT—a range of issues—were raised. They all come down to one central point: the Government are not cutting out bureaucracy. If we imagine the Government as a hopper bin, with money going into the top and the outputs and deliveries coming out at the bottom, we should see the hopper getting bigger and bigger. We have big government in this country. It needs tackling, and the Conservatives are the people to tackle it.
	I shall not go on for too much longer as we want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House, but I want to mention the countryside. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley and for Castle Point (Bob Spink), talked of the threats to the countryside from the Deputy Prime Minister. In my area, we have the threat of airport expansion. We should be wholly committed—as indeed I am—to fight the threat to our countryside from too much housing and too many airports and buildings. We need a balance, so that development is not all in the south-east but also takes place in the north and in other parts of the country. We do not have that balance at present. The burst of growth that the Government are going for in the south-east will lead only to disaster. It is right that we should fight for the unique environment of areas such as Essex, Lancashire and, in my case, Hertfordshire.
	The debate has been marvellous, as it always is. I hope that the Minister can answer all the questions in the time allotted to him. I wish everybody a happy recess and I thank the staff of the House for all they do for us.

Phil Woolas: I shall be unable to respond to all the questions, as 28 Members took part in the debate and more than 140 issues were raised, so I shall have to cherry-pick. In all seriousness, I will try to ensure that the appropriate Ministers are made aware of the points raised, and if Members have asked for a matter to be taken up with a particular Minister I will deal with it in writing, so that they receive an answer.
	Like the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I shall pick out some of the themes in the debate, but I want to talk about two speeches in particular. The first is the excellent maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He has already shown the House that he will make a good Member of Parliament and a doughty fighter for his constituents. I know that he will put the same energy into his job as he put into the campaign, which was a remarkable effort. All parties can see that in my hon. Friend we have a worthy MP. He is also a family friend, so I congratulate him personally. I confidently predict that, whenever the general election comes, the swing to Labour in Hodge Hill will be enormous—as it will be in Leicester, South, too—and that we shall write new records in the books.
	The second speech is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), about which other hon. Members have spoken, too. She made an important speech about education and further education in her constituency—her lifelong passion in politics. It struck me that her point concerns the problems of success. Demand for post-16 education in Dewsbury is greater than provision, and that is a problem of success.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire criticised the Government and tried to present his usual Chicken-Licken-the-sky-is-falling-in picture of Britain, before berating us for the problems of success. We need more houses and airports because we have more jobs, and we need more roads and railways because economic activity has increased. The debate shows that we are dealing with the problems of success. It is ironic that I am replying to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, because she opened the sixth-form college in my constituency, which is a symbol of her success.
	Many hon. Members raised the issue of defence, and I acknowledge that some serious points were made about the future of defence. Parliament's first duty is to debate the defence of this country, and two defence days remain in the Session and the Opposition can put forward their points in an Opposition day debate. The picture that this morning's newspapers and some hon. Members presented does not reflect the reality of the comprehensive spending review that, yet again, we have a real-terms increase in defence expenditure.
	The increase in defence expenditure is possible because our strong economy has resulted in an increased tax take. Unemployment has fallen because of the Chancellor's policies, which have full employment at their forefront, and the public expenditure that flows from them would not exist if we had alternative policies. Although it is right and proper for hon. Members to raise issues such as the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and other constituency concerns, it is also incumbent on us to put those things in context.
	On the crime figures, The Independent did a good job of being independent this morning. Unlike some other reports, it pointed to the British crime survey, which is the best measurement of crime and which has not changed its methodology for 20 years. [Interruption.] To be fair, the Prime Minister has used the British crime survey, which shows that crime has fallen by 25 per cent.
	I am not denying that problems exist—goodness me, antisocial behaviour and violent crime are the biggest issues in my constituency postbag. Both Government and Opposition Members have raised those issues—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) based his speech on them. The recorded crime figures as reported by the police are exactly that—reported crime—but the British crime survey, which is comprehensive, gives us a different picture.
	Crime has fallen for the past seven years. On the whole, that is a result of clamping down through the changes in the criminal justice system and the provision of extra resources for the police. I got the figures out for this debate because I anticipated that the issue would come up: there are 12,500 more police officers on the streets of this country than there were six years ago, and there are also 3,800 community support officers. Most of us can now look our constituents in the eye and say, "Yes, you see police officers on duty". We would like to see even more police officers, but the figure has increased.
	Crime is also falling because economic activity and employment have gone up. Full employment is the best policy to deal with social exclusion, deprivation, crime and other issues. It is no coincidence that as employment has risen and mass unemployment has become a distant memory—hopefully, it will never blight this country again—crime has decreased. It will take generations to solve those problems, but the Government's policy is "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and it is succeeding.
	I shall mention briefly some of the health issues and reply to the specific question on the star rating system asked by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I can report that Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with the current system. He wants to improve it. It is for that independent commission to decide how best to assess the performance of the NHS, and it is developing a new approach to the assessment of NHS bodies. So I think that directly answers the question, which was raised by two or three other hon. Members.
	Let me turn to dentistry. There is no denying that there is a problem. It is not acceptable that the constituents of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) have to drive 30 miles to a dentist. There are other examples—North Cornwall was mentioned and other parts of the country are affected. The situation is not acceptable, but more dentists are being trained and coming on stream now than ever before. Again, I have the figures with me. We have announced that we are investing—not are going to invest—an extra £368 million in NHS dentistry. We have recruited 1,000 more dentists, and by reforming the dental system to improve the long-term oral health of the nation we will make further improvements.
	I remember campaigning against the closure of university dental hospitals. I remember going on demonstrations 20 years ago, when university dental hospitals and training hospitals were closed and medical places in universities were cut. The 1981 Budget took 26 per cent. from the higher education budget in one year. That had a long-term implication. The Government were chided in the debate for blaming everything on the Conservatives who were in government seven years ago. Of course it is right that the Government should take responsibility for the faults that we have caused by our own policies in that time, but no serious commentator could deny the underfunding in our infrastructure and public services that resulted from Geoffrey Howe's Budget in 1981 and the Lawson policies in the following decade. That tide is turning under the Government's programme.
	I shall get off what are perhaps party political points—[Hon. Members: "No".]—but I think that I have spoken the truth. Perhaps I shall come back to a couple more party political points at the end if I have time. I find these debates fascinating. They are very good for Parliament. They are clearly good for raising constituency issues. I have a little points system in my mind: I award points for contributions. When hon. Members mention their local newspaper, it is always worth a point. If they name the editor and the local journalists, it is worth two points. If they name the local police superintendent, they get three points.
	A competition for the number of issues raised seems to be going on between the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and, sometimes, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer). The hon. Member for Southend, West is ahead on points at the moment. There are also points for regular contributions to these Adjournment debates, but I have to award the prize to the hon. Member for Southend, West. He normally raises the hospice movement. He did so today, during points of order just before the debate, so that he could get a second bite of the cherry. I congratulate him on that.

Bob Spink: I did that.

Phil Woolas: I am so sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). There are so many points to be awarded in these debates that I have got the wrong constituency. I am, of course, referring to the beautiful constituency of Castle Point, which the hon. Gentleman has described.
	I apologise for not being able to respond to all the specific points that have been made. Important constituency issues have been raised, and I will take them up. I am reminded of a lesson from the superintendent in my constituency—to award myself a point—Dick Crawshaw, who told me about the differences in how the police treat Members of Parliament. In the old days, if we got caught out doing something wrong, they would make an exception for us. Nowadays, they make an example of us. It is right that we should take up those constituency issues.
	A very happy recess to you, Sir, and to all the staff of the House and all hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that those good wishes are reciprocated and apply also to our absent Friends.
	It being six o'clock, the motion for the adjournment lapsed, without question put.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Kings Meadow Swimming Baths

Jane Griffiths: I rise to present a petition on behalf of no fewer than 2,000 of the constituents of Reading, East. It opposes the plan to tear down the Kings Meadow swimming baths, and to develop Kings meadow and Caversham lock on the green banks of the Thames into a hotel, apartments and other developments. The petitioners would like the area to be retained as a public amenity. They were concerned, as was I, that after awareness of the petition became public, two people turned up and damaged the swimming baths, apparently to prevent the building from being listed. I would be surprised if, as is being said in Reading, that work was carried out on behalf of the council, but the neglect of the swimming baths and allowing the building to be covered in graffiti is a shame.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Mr Robert O'Neill, residents of Caversham and Central Reading close to the River Thames, and other residents of Reading
	Declares that Kings Meadow and Caversham Lock should not be redeveloped but retained as a public amenity.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency not to redevelop Kings Meadow and Caversham Lock but to retain them as public amenities; and that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that no open space in Kings Meadow is redeveloped.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Bridgewater Drive and West Road Post Offices

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been organised by the Rev. Graham Steel, Mr. Ahmed Khwaja, the Somerset Garden estates, Mendip residents' estate and Westborough residents association. It has been signed by more than 1,000 people who are concerned about the damage that will be done to our senior citizens and the disabled if the Bridgewater drive and West road post office branches close.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Mr Hobday and others,
	Declares that many are concerned about the proposed closure of the Bridgewater Drive Branch of the Post Office, Bridgewater Drive, and others
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do all in its power to prevent the Post Office from closure.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Humberstone Park Café

Keith Vaz: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Rob and Mo Green and 2,000 other constituents in Leicester, East. It concerns proposals by the Liberal-led Leicester city council to sell off a property that is currently occupied by the Humberstone Park café, which has been a local resource for a number of years. The proposals will mean that the café will have to close and the community facility that has been provided will thus be at an end.
	The petition
	Declares that Leicester City Council is to sell off a number of council-owned properties including Humberstone Park Café. The petitioners further declare that once the café building is under private ownership the general public will have no say on future developments at the site; and that the café is an important service for the community which should remain in the hands of the City Council.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that Humberstone Park Café remains a Council-owned service for the community.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

COMMISSION FOR PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Richard Taylor: I have to express a little disappointment. A few moments ago, I thought that we were going to have an audience of four or five hon. Members, but I now discover that they have melted away, as if by magic. May I thank through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker for selecting me for this debate, because it comes at an absolutely crucial time? I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), for delaying her well earned holiday for an extra few minutes. She is welcome on the Government Front Bench.   
	The last debate of the day has been given lots of names. It has been called the last-ditch stand and the last post. Even worse, it has been called the graveyard debate. I hope that that is not prophetic. After the Secretary of State for Health's announcement this morning, it appears that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is being abolished. I hope that this debate is not the death knell of that organisation.
	There is still time for the Government to rethink and change their mind. They were recently generous in changing their mind considerably on one Bill with which I was involved—the Human Tissue Bill. Although we achieved no reasonable amendments in Committee, some useful amendments were accepted before Third Reading.
	Although I am on the Opposition Benches, I hope that the Minister might recognise me as an ally in some ways. I support the Government on NHS spending and on many NHS reforms. By convention, a solitary Independent Member does not have any hon. Friends in this place. I was caught out early on in my career here by calling the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) my hon. Friend, but I really thought he was. A former hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton wrote in his diaries:
	"There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling, and waiting, for traces of blood to appear in the water."
	I hope the Minister accepts that, as an Independent, I can be a friend on occasions to both sides of the House. I also hope she accepts that my comments are given in a spirit of friendship and helpfulness, not in opposition.
	I genuinely want to prevent the Government from making a foolish step, to the detriment of patients. Many will see their decision as a U-turn, or wasteful of money already spent. It might be seen as dictated by a desire to spike the Opposition in their claims, but that is not necessary. I would say the same thing even if Conservative Members were present: the Government do not need to be frightened of the main Tory Opposition on the NHS. Every time the subject is raised in Prime Minister's questions or Health questions, the Government score total, annihilating victory.
	The abolition of the commission is a disaster for patients, the NHS and the Government. Let me give a brief history of the situation. After my election to the House, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was a junior Health Minister, wrote:
	"The culture within the NHS needs to change so that the views of patients and citizens are not only valued but listened to and acted upon as well."
	When the Government introduced the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which was to abolish community health councils, they faced a tremendous revolt. The House of Lords tabled an amendment. To cap that, the Government sensibly tabled a much better amendment, which led to the foundation of primary care trust patient forums. They gave them huge powers and advantages that CHCs did not have.
	Inevitably, the Government then formed the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in January 2003 and gave it the enormous task of establishing itself and more than 570 patient forums, with a minimum of seven members each, by 1 December in that year, which was 11 months later. By that time, they had succeeded with about 550 of the 570 forums, from a budget of £34.9 million, £8 million of which had gone to support existing CHCs in their prolonged existence, £5.2 million to the independent complaint and advocacy services and £5.7 million to their own national centre, with the rest being spent on forums.
	The commission's focus is so in line with Government thinking on empowering people that I cannot understand the Government's decision. They wish to empower citizens to be active, and not just middle-class retired people but the disadvantaged and the silent voices, such as single mums and the disabled. There is a very useful report in The Guardian today, in which two key advisers to the Prime Minister say that the Government must
	"end the democratic deficit caused by the disengagement of the working class from almost all forms of community involvement",
	and that
	"Democracy and citizenship had to move from the periphery of progressive politics to its heart".
	I believe that the commission is going some way towards doing that. A grossly disabled person serves in one of the PCTs in my area. I do not believe that the alternative, the NHS Appointments Commission, could do that. Would it go out and find that sort of person when it is used to finding those pillars of society who become non-executive directors, and who find that they immediately lose their true independence because they have to work under rules of consensus?
	I want briefly to go through some of the other things that the commission does that are so vital. I had a letter from its chair just before Christmas, when I had written to ask how she was getting on with the tremendous task before her. She wrote:
	"I hope that you will agree with me that we have achieved a great deal this year. I hope that the New Year will see the new system finding its feet and fulfilling its promise."
	There you have it—it is a system, which needs a head as well as a body and limbs, so that it can function as a whole. It is a national body. It has to liaise with Government, strategic health authorities and other national organisations.
	An example of that, and its effectiveness, is a recent memorandum of understanding, dated 29 April, between the Local Government Association, which is so vital because of the formation of overview and scrutiny committees, and the commission. The document describes the wider role of the commission, saying:
	"The Commission is responsible for submitting reports to and advising the Government on how the PPI system is functioning. It liaises with national bodies on patient and public involvement issues and makes recommendations to these bodies and the Department of Health as appropriate."
	National liaison facilitates local liaison. Overview and scrutiny committees are a tremendously welcome innovation by the Government, because they improve public involvement and bring some democratic accountability into health service decisions. But one cannot have every such committee and every forum reinventing the wheel on co-operation all over the country.
	To me, there is no argument about the vital role of forums, but I still believe that they have to have a fully independent national co-ordinating body, which the commission shows every sign of becoming. Abolish it, and patient involvement will be set back by months, if not years. If primary legislation were involved, we would be in for months or years of uncertainty, lowering the morale of the very people who are necessary to inspire those on the forums, particularly the disadvantaged, the disabled and the inarticulate—the silent voices that we are desperate to tap into.
	To give an example, local groups that do not work without central leadership are patient participation groups set up by many general practices. In my experience, they are regarded by the GPs as a way of telling patients what they want, rather than of patients telling the GPs what they want. Recently, a constituent writing to me about a different subject mentioned patient participation groups. She wrote:
	"Those of us who have spent any time on Patient Participation Groups, for instance, have found it a great waste of time because the consumer is not listened to. Rulings come down from above!"
	At a recent meeting with professional representatives of the NHS Modernisation Agency and the NHS Confederation, I was alarmed to realise that they did not know what real patient involvement is. Unbelievably, they felt that it was limited to an individual patient's decisions about his or her own health care. I am delighted that the Government have not fallen into that trap. Today's statement says that
	"Patients' Forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services."
	I appeal to the Government to pull back from a decision which was taken unilaterally and without consultation and which was opposed by 71 per cent. of those who replied to a Health Service Journal online poll. Is abolition a political imperative? Can it be that the Government are frightened that forums with national backing would be able to expose some of the NHS's shortcomings? Surely not.
	I want the Minister to state whether primary legislation is necessary to confirm abolition. How long will it take to run things down, only for the new arrangements to restart them? I remind the House of the question that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put to the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday:
	"who was the idiot who thought that we could cut the infantry at a time when the pressure on it was enormous?"—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 356.]
	I turn that question around and ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health: who was the idiot who thought that we could remove the generals and officers from the ordinary soldiers of the forums when the pressure on them to succeed is enormous? I ask her to take all the points I have made on board and to persuade the Secretary of State for Health that it is in the interests of the Government, patients and the national health service to cancel this abolition, which will remove at a stroke the one vital, promising and truly independent arm's length body.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this debate. It is not a graveyard slot, even though the House is about to rise for the summer. I assure him that Ministers do not go on holiday quite as soon as ordinary MPs do; I seem to find myself at work next week.
	Today, we set out our proposals for all the Department of Health's arm's length bodies. It is probably worth while running through some of the background.
	The NHS plan 2000 heralded a period of investment and reform. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised that that has significantly improved outcomes for patients. I am delighted to hear of his support for these changes. At a national level, the Department of Health has driven the reform. It has set a clear and ambitious framework for doing so. In addition, the arm's-length bodies from the Department—a national network of statutory organisations—have been deputed to regulate the system, improve standards, protect public welfare and support local services. These ALBs have contributed significantly to the pace of change described in "The NHS Improvement Plan", which was published last month.
	The wider network of ALBs built up over the years has become too cumbersome in the context of devolution. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that quite a lot has changed. The ALB sector must recognise and reflect the shifting balance of power towards the front line and towards patients. Again, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the shift that is taking place and the Government's vision and support for that.
	The thinking that underlies the first thorough review of ALBs for many years reflects that. The ALB sector as a whole needs to remain coherent and fit for purpose. It needs also to enable itself to engage easily and efficiently with the service and the support that it gives to services.
	Arm's length bodies have often been interventionist in their backgrounds and high profile. That has meant they have had a maximum impact in their areas of responsibility. That has been right while the momentum for change was being created, but the price has tended to be, as time has moved on, an increasing burden on the NHS, and has led to some poor co-ordination of agendas. We therefore took the view, entirely rightly, that ALBs need to be streamlined both in number and functions. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing this not in response to anything that the Opposition are doing, but merely to reflect the fact that we are succeeding on the pace of change, reform and investment that we set ourselves. The results of that have moved forward significantly enough at this point to be able to reflect those factors in the changes that we are proposing and have outlined today.
	The streamlining goes hand in hand with that. The lifting of burdens is linked with efficiency. The ALB review is a significant component of the Government's drive to make the public sector more efficient, and a key part of the implementation of the recommendations in the Gershon efficiency review.
	In the report "Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies", which we published today, we have described our plans for the future of all the Department's ALBs. There will be a reduction in their number by almost a half to 20. We are confident that the reduction will lead to savings that can be invested in front-line services of £0.5 billion by 2007–08. It is easy to lose sense of how much money that is, even in today's health service, and the advantages of reinvesting it in front-line services.
	As our earlier written ministerial statement set out, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be abolished. Patients forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements that we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services. Stronger, more efficient arrangements to provide administrative support, advice and training will be put in place after consultation. These will enable forums to concentrate on their core functions, maximising the resources available for spending on real involvement rather than on administration. These changes fit well within the overall objectives of the ALB review.
	A clear quality framework for forum activities in monitoring and reviewing services will be established and will be communicated to forums. We are working closely with key stakeholders—forums in particular—to take this work forward and identify the best body to do that. The NHS Appointments Commission will become responsible for making appointments to patients forums. To pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about the search for members of the commission and non-executive directors, the commission has been a useful body in establishing the forums. However, another of its key tasks is to work with Government Departments to make sure that its work and the work of the patients forums is fully reflected in the cross-Government work on citizen engagement.
	The timetable for implementation has not yet been set, and we will work closely with key stakeholders to ensure that there is minimum disruption for staff, people who support the forums and forum members themselves. I emphasise that our decision to abolish the commission was not borne out of concerns about its performance, nor does it indicate a reduction in our commitment to patient and public involvement. The Government share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about empowering patients—I am an enthusiast myself—and there are many examples of that empowerment, not least the expert patient programme, which is a fantastic initiative that changes the emphasis of the doctor-patient relationship that he described. The commission's performance, particularly its achievement in setting up the forums and recruiting about 5,000 members within a tight time scale, is highly commendable. Our commitment to empowering patients and the public by providing opportunities to influence change and increasing care choices is a key theme of the NHS improvement plan and the continuing modernisation of the NHS.
	We decided to abolish the commission and make better use of existing organisations to support, promote and implement patient and public involvement and ensure that it develops in the widest context possible. Effective involvement builds trust and confidence in public bodies, and helps public services to adapt to the needs and expectations of their users. The NHS Appointments Commission is the expert body that was set up to make public appointments, so it is logical that recruitment on the scale necessary to maintain forum numbers is carried out by an organisation that is expert in making appointments.
	Patient and public involvement is not just about patients forums, although they are an important part of the arrangements that we have set up. The NHS is the key implementer of patient and public involvement, and it, too, needs advice and support to do so better and to learn from the experiences of others. It is not a statutory function of the commission to advise the NHS about patient and public involvement, and there should be a more strategic and joined-up approach to providing that advice to forums, the NHS and other organisations that provide health care so that patient and public involvement is embedded in their services. We will therefore ensure that those functions are covered for all providers as well as forums, and that work is developed with other bodies more generally involved in community engagement so that the lessons from patients forums and from NHS experience of public involvement are shared across sectors. Primary legislation will be required to abolish the commission, and it will be introduced in the usual way when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we will explore alternative options on the implementation of the decision.
	Patients forums are currently supported by a wide range of local providers. There have been some difficulties with that approach, not least the inconsistencies in the support that forums receive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of consistent support, but inconsistencies are inevitable, given the large number of contracts. The problem must be addressed so that all forums can benefit from strong local support and carry out their functions as effectively as possible. By learning from the commission's experience we will ensure that forums all receive high quality support and can make even more of an impact.
	The current budget for the commission is £33.3   million. There will be no cuts to that budget, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. We will invest more resources in patients forums, and any savings that accrue from the abolition of the commission will be invested in patients forums and in providing expert advice on patient and public involvement.
	In the time remaining, I shall describe how patients forums will be affected. As I said, they are the cornerstone of patient and public involvement. They will not be abolished, nor will their independence be undermined. Rather, the support they receive is to be strengthened. It is key in the new arrangements that forums remain as independent as they currently are, so that they can continue to be responsive to the views of local people. That is the essence of what they are about.
	The 5,000 current members of patients forums are beginning to get their work under way, so we are just beginning to see the results of that work. The all-party group on patient and public involvement hosted a reception for forum members earlier this month. The hon. Gentleman was in attendance on that occasion, I think.

Richard Taylor: indicated assent.

Melanie Johnson: The purpose of the event was to celebrate the achievements of forums so far. We need to retain and build on the momentum that already exists. The key to doing that will be to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum during the implementation of our recommendations.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman works closely with the patients forum in his constituency. I am very encouraged by the work that that forum has been carrying out. The forum and sixth-form drama students in the area worked together to produce a video on wasted medicines. A copy of the video was, I understand, sent to every GP surgery in the area in January, to be played in their reception areas and waiting rooms. That is an excellent example of the kind of work that forums are carrying out and demonstrates the value of that approach.
	I emphasise that we are committed to patients forums and their work. We are beginning to see them influencing change locally, considering patients' views and the services and reflecting those. They need strengthened and more consistent support to carry out their work and they need to work to consistent, high standards. Of course, they must continue to be independent. The proposals that we will bring forward following consultation will ensure just that.
	I conclude by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the interests that he has represented in the debate and our interests entirely coincide. There will be advantages to the new arrangements as we develop the detail and give patients forums the support due to them. The emphasis will change towards more support for the patient—a trend that we all welcome in the health service of today, and which will drive the health service of the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.